Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 5 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Eastern Europe

Mr. Nigel Evans: What financial and technical assistance she gives eastern European Governments to develop their economies. [115429]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Over the past five years, bilateral financial and technical assistance to eastern Europe has averaged around £80 million a year. It is channelled not only directly to central Governments, but to local governments and to non-governmental and civil society organisations. In addition however, the UK has provided assistance through our contributions to multilateral institutions, including our share of EC commitments, which averaged around £200 million a year.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response, and it seems that Britain is doing its bit at least. However, Britain is not alone in suffering from the growing influx of economic migrants from eastern Europe, especially from Romania. I understand that Holland, Belgium and a number of other European Union countries are suffering in the same way. What meetings has the Minister had with European Union colleagues to try to persuade them to ensure that the money that we put in is being spent effectively, economically and technically, to ensure that those countries' economies can improve? That improvement would help them, but it would also help other countries that want to stem the economic tide.

Mr. Foulkes: Not only have we discussed the matter with our European partners, but I had the opportunity to discuss it with a Romanian Minister who visited us two weeks ago. I discussed with the Romas the type of help

that we are giving to improve the position in that country. That help makes it less likely that they will seek to go elsewhere.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend share my experience, gained from being co-chair of the Future of Europe Trust, that one of the most urgent priorities for eastern Europe is the extension of civil rights and the rebuilding of civil society? May I urge his Department to give special priority to strengthening non-governmental organisations and other bodies in those countries?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Future of Europe Trust is doing a good job, as is the Westminster Foundation and a number of other organisations. Many of our resources are channelled into the sort of work that my hon. Friend has suggested. However, we will certainly consider any further assistance that we can give in that direction.

AIDS (Africa)

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the extent of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. [115430]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): AIDS is now the biggest killer in Africa: 14 million Africans have died as a result of the infection, and nearly 4 million died last year alone. In the worst-affected countries, one in four adults is infected. The impacts are reversing development gains made over the past 30 years. Life expectancy is dropping. Gains in child survival are being reversed, and the limited pool of skilled workers is being decimated. By the end of this year, 10.4 million African children will have lost their mothers, or both parents, to AIDS.
The Government are committed to intensifying our work, alongside UNAIDS in Africa. We are spending £20 million a year, and our commitment will grow.

Mr. Robathan: I pay tribute to the Department's work in this matter. The world focused on the tragic floods in Mozambique, which killed some 5,000 people, but over the next five years some 4 million Mozambicans will die from AIDS, as that is the approximate number of people there who are infected with HIV. The problem is so enormous that it dwarfs all the others facing sub-Saharan Africa. Unless the HIV-AIDS problem is sorted out, there can be no further development in the area, so will the Secretary of State review her priorities for aid there?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the problem is worse than he described, as 4 million people died of AIDS in Africa last year. This is an incredible crisis and a major priority for the Department. The good news is that such Governments as those in Senegal and Uganda, who have given it priority and who have mounted really honest and open campaigns, have stemmed the tide when it comes to the growth of the infection. We must get other countries to adopt the same courageous leadership, backed up by the international community. Half the cases of new infection involved young people, and more than half of those were young


women, many of whom did not consent to sexual relations. They must be given the strength to be able to refuse and protect themselves.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about some recent statements by South Africa's President Mbeki and the impact that they might have on prevention work and on people's access to treatments in that country? Will she take every opportunity to raise the matter with the Government of South Africa?
Will my right hon. Friend also try to persuade the pharmaceutical companies that they should do what they can to ensure that treatments are available that are within the budgets of South Africa and other African countries? Last year, the companies tried to prevent the manufacture of generic drugs, which gave the impression that they were worried only about profit and certainly contributed to the suspicions aired by President Mbeki.

Clare Short: I have read the reports of what President Mbeki is supposed to have said, and they are rather worrying. However, I met the South African Health Minister last week in The Hague, and she said that the reports did not accurately portray her Government's position. As my hon. Friend will know, the infection is growing and spreading in South Africa very seriously indeed. We are doing all that we can to work with the South African Government and to ensure that action is taken to prevent the spread of the disease.
President Mbeki is right: HIV-AIDS spreads where there is untreated sexually transmitted disease, so it tends to spread more rapidly among poor people. They need other treatment to help them prevent the spread.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are helping to fund research into injections to vaccinate people against HIV. Anti-retro viral treatment is much more difficult—it is so expensive that if 25 per cent. of the people in Malawi had it, that would cost nearly 100 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Therefore, such treatment is not practical for most of Africa. However, better treatment for tuberculosis is available, and that will give a lot of comfort and help.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is the duty and responsibility of employers in the public and private sectors—particularly the private sector—to take measures to educate their work force on how to manage the problem of HIV-AIDS and the associated illnesses? Is that not the way to begin to reduce the number infected?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. The more forward-looking employers are doing that. Something like one third of teachers have the infection in many countries that have a grave shortage of teachers. It is also spread by the armed forces, which tend to move around with the infection. There must be more education in schools. We must protect young people so that the next generation does not become infected. Everyone, including the armed forces and employers, must take the problem more seriously.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State shares everyone's concerns about the terrifying scale of HIV-AIDS in Africa in general, but in Zimbabwe

in particular. One in four adults in Zimbabwe has the virus, 1,000 die every week from an AIDS-related illness and perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that 14 per cent. of all children aged four and under are HIV positive through no fault of their own.
Of the British aid package for the Government of Zimbabwe—roughly £67 million—what percentage is spent on HIV-AIDS? What percentage of that programme does the Secretary of State estimate disappears into pockets of corruption and never gets to the people who so desperately need it?

Clare Short: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman without notice what proportion of our programme in Zimbabwe is focused on HIV-AIDS. However, I can assure him that we are working on that problem in Zimbabwe. We have had difficulties dealing with this problem, as we have in other matters, because of the lack of political leadership. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Zimbabwe, but we do not believe that it is right simply to cancel the whole of Britain's assistance to Zimbabwe as some of his hon. Friends have requested—[Interruption.] Some have, although perhaps not the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). The poor of Zimbabwe suffer most from the terrible economic crisis, and we want to stay engaged where we can be useful, without giving any support to some of the actions of Zimbabwe's Government that are so destructive for its people and its economy.

Mr. Streeter: I am certainly not looking to pick a fight with the Secretary of State on this issue, because it is so important. No one wants the people of Zimbabwe to suffer because of the withdrawal of our aid programme, but would it not be more effective to stop channelling the money into the Government of Zimbabwe and redirect it through the charities, non-governmental organisations and churches in that country which are doing a terrific job, particularly for HIV-AIDS victims? Would that not be a better way of ensuring that more money gets through to the people who need it? It would also send a clear signal to the Government of Zimbabwe that their actions are intolerable and we will not support them.

Clare Short: Although the substantive question was not on Zimbabwe, let me point out that President Mugabe has made it clear that he had a much closer, better, friendlier and warmer relationship with the previous Administration in the United Kingdom than he has with this Government, so I do not think that we will be taking any lessons from the hon. Gentleman and his party on how to deal with the situation in Zimbabwe.
The situation is terribly serious. We must try to preserve good institutions in Zimbabwe that will function well and care for the people but give the Government no comfort. That is what we are trying to do, and I am sure that it is right.

Third-world Debt

Mr. Chris Pond: What recent progress has been made on debt relief for the poorest countries; and if she will make a statement. [115432]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Debt relief under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative has been agreed for the first three countries, with Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania being assessed next. Under the new framework, countries are required to develop poverty reduction strategies, which are published, to qualify for debt relief. In that way, we shall ensure that debt relief will help the poor. We are concerned that progress in finalising enhanced debt relief is slower than was originally promised and agreed.

Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the Jubilee 2000 claim that 19,000 children die every day as a result of debt. Although I recognise and welcome the progress made under her leadership by the UK Government on this issue, will she do everything that she can to instil a sense of urgency in some other countries in order to reach the commitment made at Cologne that, by the end of this year, 25 countries will be brought to decision point? Time is running out for those countries, and time is running out for those children.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. The promise that three quarters of the eligible heavily indebted poor countries would have received their enhanced debt relief by the end of 2000 is slipping; it is in danger of not being met. The Government are doing all in our power to exert pressure in Washington to achieve speedier processing of applications. We could do with the support of all Members of Parliament and, indeed, the Jubilee 2000 coalition to put pressure on all the Governments involved as well as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so that the promises are kept.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if she were to continue with the debt relief package to Zimbabwe, that would send the most appalling message to other countries that, however badly they behaved, they could nevertheless be the beneficiary of debt relief? Will she and the Government take action to deal with the appalling situation in which the only productive element in the economy—that of the white farmers—is being destroyed in an otherwise bankrupt system? May we please have some action from the Government—at least by having Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth?

Clare Short: This substantive question is not on Zimbabwe either. Zimbabwe is not a highly indebted poor country, nor is it eligible for debt relief. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation in that country is extremely serious; the whole economy, including farming, is in trouble. No fuel is available; the economy is grinding to a halt, and the situation is desperately serious for all concerned. We must do everything that we can to get Zimbabwe back on track for the sake of all its people—black and white.

Mr. Desmond Browne: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), my right hon. Friend expressed her dissatisfaction with the rate of progress in the delivery of

relief to heavily indebted poor countries. Could she tell the House about the administration blockage in that process and what steps can be taken to clear it?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Behind closed doors in Washington, in the processes of the World Bank and the IMF, countries are able to take up positions that are not the same as those that they take in public. Some countries have not yet found the resources that they owe to the HIPC trust fund in order to carry through the process. However, we have all agreed that countries that establish broad poverty reduction strategies should be able to get on track. They can then refine the programme and receive complete debt relief later. Some countries in the IMF and World Bank put down so many conditions that it takes much time to get countries moving. The whole international community needs to exert pressure over that matter.

Mozambique

Mr. Simon Burns: If she will make a statement on progress in the supply of aid to Mozambique. [115433]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The search and rescue phase of the emergency in Mozambique is over. Relief operations continue to progress as access improves. The priority remains to stabilise the conditions of the flood-affected population by providing sufficient shelter, food, water, sanitation and health care, both in accommodation centres and to those able to return home. We are also committed to refocusing and driving forward our growing development programme. Mozambique remains one of the poorest countries on earth—between 30 and 40 per cent. of its children are severely malnourished even when there are no floods. The recent crisis must not be allowed to derail Mozambique's recent progress in economic reform and poverty reduction.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. Will she confirm that one by-product of the recent flooding and disasters in Mozambique has been the shifting by floodwater of huge numbers of land mines, which are left over from the civil wars and represent a lethal threat to the population? Does any of the relief that she is giving that country include either financial or practical aid to help deal with the on-going land mine problem resulting from the floods? Will she confirm that the strong and good work that she and the Government have been doing with the Halo Trust will continue and that there might be additional funding to deal with the new threat?

Clare Short: I can confirm that, in the Zambezia province, which was not affected by the flooding but was a centre of the civil war, and where the United Kingdom has been asked to lead, we have been working, through the Halo Trust, to clear mines, and that province has been cleared. A very small team of workers is left there because mines are occasionally found in bushes and so on. The suggestion that, in the flooded area, land mines have moved and become dangerous is being taken seriously.


There is a United Nations expert team there, but I do not know the outcome of the review that it is conducting. I shall find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the problem of land mines, there may be great problems in the supply of suitable land for planting once the flood waters have receded? What efforts are being made to identify suitable land and to provide seeds to grow food for the future in Mozambique?

Clare Short: Many people have lost absolutely everything—their homes, crops, seeds and tools. What we must do—we have learned this—is not just feed those people, because they then become endlessly dependent, but help them to get home, and provide materials so that they can build their own houses, as most African people do, and seeds and tools so that they can plant. However, they need to be fed until crops grow, and that is what we are doing.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the lack of heavy-lift equipment in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Europe hampers our response to natural disasters such as the one that has just been experienced in Mozambique? What talks or discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence and other such Departments in Europe in order to rectify the matter and make a rapid response force a reality?

Clare Short: I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we should buy military equipment in the UK in order to respond to natural disasters across the world. That is just not the most efficient way of spending money or of getting assistance to people rapidly. If there is a military case for more heavy-lift equipment for MOD forces, it should be made in those terms. Our Department and all those who help in emergencies must always commission the best equipment that can be moved the fastest and is the most effective use of aid resources. As the hon. Lady knows, in the case of Mozambique that meant, first, helicopters from southern Africa and then those from the MOD once the price that it charged was reduced. I do not think that spending money on the MOD for heavy-lift equipment for aid is the right way of going about such matters.

Mr. Steve McCabe: As well as the legacy of land mines, the civil war left huge gaps in Mozambique's road, rail and communications network. Before the flood, the Government and the authorities were developing a careful, rational plan for improvement, which has obviously now suffered a severe setback. What role will the Department play in helping the longer-term reconstruction of Mozambique?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; Mozambique is a large country, with good land but few roads. The main north-south road has been breached and needs repairing. There are plans for a link to South Africa, which would help develop the economy. In Zambezia province, we have been helping to find local contractors to build rural roads, which will increase production of crops, because farmers can get to market, and enable more children to

attend school and more people to access health care. Mozambique needs much of that assistance right across the country in order to develop its economy.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that we should all learn from our experiences, however painful. Since haggling with the Ministry of Defence over the cost of hiring helicopters, what changes has she made in departmental procedures?

Clare Short: I am sorry that those who speak for the Conservative party cannot seem to understand rationality and facts. It has been made absolutely clear in four presentations to the Select Committee that it is the duty and the job of my Department always to commission equipment that can get as rapidly as possible to people affected by disasters. When the Ministry of Defence first made an offer, the price was very high and the time that it would have taken to get its helicopters to Mozambique was greater than it took to commission other helicopters elsewhere. Therefore, we did not commission the Ministry of Defence's helicopters; we commissioned others. There was thus no delay in getting help to Mozambique.
Later, the Ministry of Defence cuts its price. There was no haggling; it cut its price and it has said so on the record. Therefore, it was worthwhile commissioning its helicopters. That is how we shall always proceed. The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that it will set its price depending on whether the exercise has training value. That is a matter for that Department.

Chechnya

Mr. Harry Cohen: What assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to assist rebuilding in Chechnya. [115435]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Our assistance to the north Caucasus is focused on meeting emergency humanitarian needs. We have already contributed £1.4 million to the United Nations and to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and about 800,000 euros through our share of the assistance provided by ECHO, the European Commission Humanitarian Office. I am now able to announce an initial UK contribution of $500,000—which is about a third of a million pounds—in response to the latest UN appeal. We stand ready to consider any further requests for assistance.

Mr. Cohen: I welcome that answer, but the international community did precious little as civilians in Chechnya were rendered homeless and destitute and made refugees in neighbouring republics and states. I know that it was a dangerous situation, but not upsetting the Russians also seemed to inform western policy. Now that the war is over, will the Government offer direct aid to the Chechens and, together with other nations, lean on the Russians to restore Chechnya and say to them, "We know that you can destroy, but can you rebuild?"

Mr. Foulkes: Both Britain and our European partners condemned the use of indiscriminate force in Chechnya and called for a political process to end the conflict. We have also called for a full and transparent


investigation into the allegations of human rights abuses. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear to President Putin when he met him in St. Petersburg, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made that clear to the Russian Foreign Minister. Our concern is humanitarian assistance, and we shall deal with that as sympathetically as possible. My hon. Friend is quite right about reconstruction—the principal responsibility rests with Russia.

Mr. David Atkinson: Given that the Putin Government now appear to be committed to the reconstruction of Chechnya, will the Government, together with the European Union, offer assistance and humanitarian aid for the restoration of the Chechen economy and infrastructure?

Mr. Foulkes: It is clearly far too early to assess what will be needed and how it will be paid for. That is something that we shall have to consider. At the moment, our first priority is to deal with the 180,000 internally displaced people in Ingushetia and those who are suffering in other parts of the north Caucasus. We have a strong and important job to do in that connection. That is our immediate concern.

Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the appalling reports received by Amnesty International about the so-called filtration camps where Chechen refugees are held by the Russians and where torture and rape are said to be prevalent? Will he ask the Russian Government to make sure that those appalling human rights abuses come to an end? Will he request that the humanitarian agencies of the International Committee of the Red Cross and medical assistance are allowed into those camps immediately?

Mr. Foulkes: We are deeply concerned about the reports of human rights abuses. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary telephoned the Russian Foreign Minister to ask directly for an investigation into the allegations of human rights abuses in Chechnya. I will investigate the particular instances that my hon. Friend has mentioned and write to her about them.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Have the Government been told or have they made any estimate of the number of civilians killed in the Chechen conflict?

Mr. Foulkes: I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question; it is not a matter for the Department for International Development.

Dakar Education Summit

Fiona Mactaggart: What progress she expects to be made at the education summit in Dakar; and if she will make a statement. [115436]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The world education forum in Dakar in Senegal will take place at the end of April. I will lead the UK delegation. Our objective is to obtain a strengthened commitment from developing country Governments and international agencies to achieve effective primary education for all children by 2015. That is an achievable

objective, and there is clear evidence that getting a generation of children educated, including the girls, is the single most powerful development intervention that a country can make.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I take advantage of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is sitting next to her to ask her whether she can make Britain the champion of universal primary education? We have a Government who were elected on a platform of education, education, education, yet around the world the numbers of children in primary education and of literate people are falling. Can we lead a worldwide campaign to ensure that by 2015 everyone in the world learns to read and write?

Clare Short: As a Government, we are attempting to do that very thing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has this week given a commitment to try to lead a campaign to make sure that Africa is not bypassed by information technology, and he has made a link with an appropriate company to try to ensure that such technology is brought to Africa and used more effectively in teacher training. There is a danger that information technology will bypass Africa—we need to train more teachers to deliver education in Africa, so my right hon. Friend has made that very commitment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In his Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra 10,000 nurses. The following day, the Prime Minister himself announced an extra increase in resources for the national health service up to 7.6 per cent. Both major announcements had to be withdrawn and corrected. Will the Prime Minister promise straightforwardness and honesty in future health announcements?

The Prime Minister: I can indeed confirm that in addition to the 4,500 nurses already in the health service under this Government, there will be another 10,000. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make that clear. The 7.6 per cent. increase is referable to the 8 per cent. target, and we will meet the 7.6 per cent. target too.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Prime Minister for sharing the anger of all at Rover Longbridge, the components suppliers and all those who work in the dealerships at the bombshell dropped by BMW in its disposal of Rover.


[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition find this funny. Will my right hon. Friend send a message to the many thousands who will march through the city this Saturday to demonstrate the importance of manufacturing and the car industry to our city, our region and our nation?

The Prime Minister: First of all, I know how desperately serious the situation is, and I fully understand and share the deep concerns that the march demonstrates. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will carry on doing everything that we possibly can. Our action includes the £129 million that we have already allocated to support Rover Longbridge investment and to make sure that people who will lose their job will have the chance, through that investment, to gain another job.
The taskforce is now up and working. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is at a meeting with BMW, and is working with the company to protect the jobs that can be protected and to make sure that BMW fulfils its proper responsibilities. This is a deeply serious situation; we are aware of its seriousness, and that is why I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be on that march, making these points, on Saturday.

Mr. William Hague: We agree with the Prime Minister about the level of public concern and we support the work of the taskforce, but is he aware that, this morning, the chief executive of BMW UK told the Select Committee that, last year, the losses at Rover were such that the whole BMW group was at risk? There are reports today that, on 20 December, the chairman of BMW as a whole told the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
We may have to reconsider our whole investment in Britain altogether.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that?

The Prime Minister: No, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that the conversation, which, if I recall rightly, took place on 22 December, was about the need to speed up the application to the European Commission for aid funding. As a result of that conversation, my right hon. Friend got in touch with the Commission, which agreed to fast-track the application. It is incorrect to say that BMW's chairman informed him that the company was about to close Longbridge.

Mr. Hague: The precise words in question are:
We may have to reconsider our whole investment in Britain altogether.
BMW did not walk in with a "For Sale" sign, but those words appear to provide a pretty important clue. It is reported that the chairman of BMW says that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
knew before Christmas how serious the position was. The message was crystal clear, even at this … stage.
That contrasts with the statement the Government made two weeks ago, that they did not know what was going on and they had not been told anything at all.
Are there not only two possibilities: first, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was warned of the seriousness of the situation and did insufficient about it; and, secondly, that he should have known, but knew nothing, despite the fact that it now turns out that Rover

had been offered for sale to General Motors and Ford? When £150 million of taxpayers' money is involved in the securing of tens of thousands of jobs, is it not his business to know such things? Is that not what he is for?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman tries to make political capital of the situation—I really am. I have already explained the conversation that took place with the chairman of BMW. The claim made at the time was in respect of the European Commission aid application; we did everything we could to accelerate its progress, and we succeeded in fast-tracking the application. However, that was not the issue that determined BMW's ultimate decision. That decision having been made, we can do only one thing: work night and day, as we will, both to put in the money necessary for reinvestment and to ensure that those who are displaced and lose their jobs find other jobs. The truth is, the right hon. Gentleman has no alternative policy to offer.

Mr. Hague: When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry presides over a mess of such magnitude, he is meant to be held to account in the House of Commons. That is one of the things for which the House exists, but we have to ask the Prime Minister because the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made only rare appearances in the House in the past two weeks.
Does the Prime Minister not find it disturbing that his right hon. Friend provides a classic example of this all mouth, no delivery Government? He announces the Government grant with great fanfare at the time, but fails to secure its delivery and allows it to become bogged down in European Union bureaucracy. Despite clear messages from BMW, he fails to understand the seriousness of the situation and then denies having been told anything of any significance. He is seen everywhere when the jobs seem secure, but is nowhere to be seen when they are at risk. Finally, the best defence he can muster is that, as the UK's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he knew nothing about the likely fate of tens of thousands of jobs and £150 million of public money. Does the Prime Minister still have confidence in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister: I think that some of those who work at Longbridge will remember who sold off Longbridge. As for saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has never gone near Longbridge, he went there immediately after the announcement was made. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is there today.
As has been made clear by everyone, the reason for BMW's decision had nothing to do with the European Commission application. We have done everything that we possibly can. The only intelligent way forward is to make sure that we make the investment in the future for Longbridge that can be preserved, and help those who will lose their jobs to find others. The worst thing that we could do for the midlands and the car industry is return to the disastrous policies pursued by the Conservatives when they were in office. In case people have forgotten, let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that, when he was a member of the last Conservative Government, 1


million manufacturing jobs were lost in this country. The one group of people from whom the Longbridge workers will take no lessons is the Conservative party.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: It must be progress for a Lancashire Member to be able to praise an initiative from Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the Yorkshire building society's campaign against excessive cash machine charges? It has produced a petition with more than 100,000 names, which was presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Monday. Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.] Yes, he was on the job.

Madam Speaker: Order. Come along, Mr. Marsden.

Mr. Marsden: Does the Prime Minister agree that the efforts of banks such as Barclays and others in this direction, and in the closure programme of branches that goes with it, threaten to undermine everything that the Government are doing for rural areas to tackle social exclusion and help pensioners? Will he use all the powers at his disposal to cap cash machine charges and to address the issues?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the banks and building societies ruled out the possibility that consumers could be charged twice for one cash withdrawal. That is a step in the right direction. However, the banks and building societies need to go further if they are to meet the concerns of their customers.
I know that some banks and building societies have already indicated that they do not propose to impose any cash machine charges, and we welcome that. We shall continue to make sure that they live up to their responsibilities properly.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister concur with the views that were expressed to me repeatedly by all parties in recent days in both Belfast and Dublin that, given the suspension of the Assembly, the big worry is that a political vacuum will now develop? What priorities are the Government and the Prime Minister pursuing to try to ensure that such a vacuum does not develop?

The Prime Minister: It is very important that a political vacuum does not develop. That would be dangerous for Northern Ireland. We will do everything we can, both working with the Irish Government and with the parties in Northern Ireland, to make sure that that does not happen. Rounds of discussions have been taking place already between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the parties in Northern Ireland, and we will carry on these discussions in the next few weeks to make sure that we can put the institutions back up again. That is the best security for people in Northern Ireland.
It is a frustrating process. Every major question has been resolved by the Good Friday agreement. Every major point of principle can be resolved. It would be a tragedy

if we lost this chance for peace. I believe that there still exists the residual will in Northern Ireland to find a way through.

Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House will wish to support the Prime Minister in those sentiments. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as long as the Assembly is suspended—let us hope that it can be restored as soon as is politically possible—the Council of the Isles stands suspended as well?
There is deep concern in Belfast and Dublin, as well as in our country, about Sellafield, an issue that could properly be discussed and considered in the context of the Council of the Isles. Given that that option is not available, and given also the grave concerns about Sellafield on both sides of the Irish sea, what steps are the Government taking on this issue?

The Prime Minister: Ministers have made it clear to the chairman of BNFL that we want to see big changes in the way that it is run and managed. The chairman is due to report back to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers by early April on the plans for that. New senior management is now in place. It is important to emphasise that the Health and Safety Executive has given a safety clearance to reprocessing. The work force is immensely dedicated, talented and skilled. I am sure that with that dedication and talent, the clearance from the HSE and the new plan that will be submitted, BNFL can go back on a sound and secure footing for the future.

Mr. Steve McCabe: My right hon. Friend has no doubt seen the recent Audit Commission report, with its damning criticisms of the inadequate help and the poor provision of essential equipment, aids and adaptations for elderly people and people with disabilities. Surely that state of affairs in modern Britain is totally unacceptable. What does he intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: We have, of course, seen the Audit Commission report. We agree that its findings of poor performance in many areas over some time are unacceptable. This morning I discussed that and other health service issues with the heads of the Audit Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement and the social services inspectorate, together with a number of key doctors, nurses and managers who are driving through change in the national health service. I was deeply impressed both by their commitment and by the recognition right across the service that there are many examples of excellent practice, and also many examples in which practice is falling far short of what is acceptable.
I have no doubt that now that the issue of resources in the NHS has been resolved, at least for the foreseeable future, the health service has the chance to put in place the changes and reforms necessary to deliver tip-top service for the patients. It is heartening that the people working in the health service are, in my view, fully up for the change that needs to take place.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the widespread support in the House for his Government's proposals on climate change and renewable energy. Is he aware, however, that applications for large-scale wind farm


development in mid-Wales and Ceredigion are not decided by local authorities or by the National Assembly for Wales, but are still decided by the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he undertake to use his influence to review that legislative oversight and, in the mean time, will he give an undertaking to my constituents that his Government will not seek to push through a planning application in the face of local authority or National Assembly opposition?

The Prime Minister: I cannot promise any legislative changes to the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and this Parliament, but I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. If he will allow me to do so, I shall write to him.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has my right hon. Friend noted the social security report this morning, which shows that the gap between poor pensioners and rich pensioners has increased significantly over the past 20 years? Is not the minimum income guarantee a good way of addressing that? Will he give it his personal backing, and is not that the duty of every hon. Member, and above all, perhaps, members of the Opposition, who did so little for the oldest and poorest pensioners when their party was in power?

The Prime Minister: It is correct that the Conservative party opposed the £150 winter allowance and the minimum income guarantee, which increase the incomes of the poorest pensioners by some £500 a year. We want to make sure that those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee claim it. That is why we are launching the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign. As part of that campaign, we shall write to more than 2 million pensioners who, we believe, may be eligible, to encourage them to claim. The minimum income guarantee will make a real difference. Pensioners' incomes vary, and we must make sure that they are getting more help, especially those living in poverty.

Mr. William Hague: This weekend, a senior Cabinet Minister was reported as saying that if the Government are defeated again in the Lords on section 28—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] It is no good Labour Members not wanting to talk about it. It was the Government who introduced the measure into Parliament. It was reported that if the Government are defeated again in the Lords on section 28, the Prime Minister will simply say
I tried and failed; now good riddance to the issue.
Is it true that he is now ready to back down on section 28?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not true. We remain committed to the repeal of section 28, and we remain set against the mischievous propaganda campaign which has suggested that repealing section 28 will mean that children in our schools will have their sex education lessons changed. That is completely untrue. Since 1994, under the previous Government, section 28 has not applied to schools in England and Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes that, let him now get up and say so. If he does not dispute it, he should stop associating himself with that propaganda.

Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister is not ready to back down on this, why does he have his Ministers running

around telling newspapers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is the Prime Minister who has to answer the questions at Question Time.
If the Prime Minister is not ready to back down, why does he have his Ministers running around telling newspapers that he is heartily sick of the issue and ready to give up on the whole thing? Is it not because he likes to say different things to different people at the same time in order to fool all of the people all of the time? Let us get this straight. Just so that we know what we have to do to get him to back off on this politically correct nonsense, will he tell us whether, if the Lords defeat the measure one more time, he will abandon it?

The Prime Minister: We remain committed to the repeal of section 28. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not say whether he accepts that it has not applied to schools in this country since 1994. There is one reason and one reason only why people are concerned about the repeal of section 28: because they are being told that it affects sex education in schools. First, sex education in schools has been the prerogative of teachers, parents and governors since 1994. Secondly, any parent has the right by law to withdraw their child from any sex education in schools.
I know that it is my job to answer the questions, not the right hon. Gentleman's. But, if he does not want to be accused of hiding behind prejudice, he should say whether he accepts that what I have just said is true.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hague: I am very happy to move to the other side of the Chamber and answer the questions at any time.
Section 28 applies to councils administering schools and it applies to the advice and material that councils give to schools. Now that I have answered the Prime Minister's question, let us have an answer to mine. When will he realise that the majority in this country are tolerant and understanding, but that they do not want their children subject to politically correct propaganda? That is why he has lost the argument, and that is why Members of the Cabinet go around saying that this has been a distraction. Is it not time that the Government focused on delivering services that people actually want instead of wasting time and money on the Labour party's pet political projects? Why does the Prime Minister not listen to the common sense of the great majority of the people and abandon this now before it goes to the Lords again?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and let me repeat to people, section 28 has nothing whatever to do with sex education in schools. It never has had. As I say, since 1994, it has not even applied to schools. The truth of the matter is that the campaign is based on people who do not want to come out and say that they are prejudiced against gay people. They do not want—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: They do not want to say that they are prejudiced against gay people, so they hide behind the issue of child protection. No child will be forced to take part in gay sex lessons in schools. No child will engage


in school sex lessons that are wrong. Sex lessons in schools will carry on being the prerogative of teachers, parents and governors. Parents will carry on having the right to withdraw their children from those sex education lessons. Those are the facts. The right hon. Gentleman knows them, and—just occasionally—he should stand up for what is right rather than join in a campaign that misrepresents the facts and would have no chance of gaining any popular support if it did not misrepresent the facts.

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Is the Prime Minister aware that a Ministry of Defence spokesman has stated that British shipyards are at risk of not receiving the pending roll-on, roll-off ferries order? Does he also know that, before any decision has been made, a Minister has told a shop steward that the order is likely to go to Germany?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that. The Ministry of Defence has not made its decision yet. My hon. Friend should at least await that decision.

Mr. James Gray: The recent cancer summit at No. 10 Downing street was described by the World Health Organisation cancer chief as a silly photo opportunity and orchestrated hype with nothing at the end to show for it. Will tomorrow's farmers summit at No. 10 Downing street be more substantive? Will farmers go home with something more than a free photo opportunity and a copy of the Prime Minister's speech?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman opposes the additional work that we are doing on cancer services; £50 million is going towards those services. Perhaps he should listen to Dr. Mike Richards, who said that the cancer service programme that we are establishing will result in a dramatic increase in the treatment of cancer patients in the next few years. The best way in which to improve cancer services is to support the additional investment in the health service under this Government.
We have had a week of waiting for an answer from the Conservative party. Does the position that the shadow Chancellor set out—tax cuts come first—remain the same, or do Conservative Members support investment in public services? Until they come out and explain how they will support measures to invest in public services, their protestations about the health service will ring hollow.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Is the Prime Minister aware that BMW has stripped out the capital plant equipment for the new Mini line in Longbridge and transferred it to Birmingham international airport? Will he explain to the chairman of BMW that there is no airport at Cowley, and that if he wants to keep his word this time, and build the new Mini in Oxford, it would be best to drive the equipment down the M40?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that we can pass on my hon. Friend's comments to the chairman.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he and I contested the Beaconsfield by-election, he was welcomed to the

constituency by the headline in the local paper, "Benn-backing Barrister is Labour's Choice"? That is Benn-backing rather than Ken-backing. Does he know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) supports my Bill to provide targets for organic food and farming? At tomorrow's summit at No. 10 Downing street, will he explicitly acknowledge the need to expand organic foods—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear a word. [Interruption.] Order. This is a Parliament and hon. Members must be heard.

Mr. Tyler: At the summit for farmers tomorrow, will the Prime Minister reiterate his commitment, which he made at last month's National Farmers Union annual general meeting, to an expansion of organic food and farming? Will he prevent his Whip from shouting "Object" to my Bill?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of Beaconsfield and how far he has moved to higher and better things.
We are increasing support and subsidy to organic farming. Consequently, the number of organic farmers is increasing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. I hope that at tomorrow's summit we can provide a short-term strategy and long-term assistance for farming.

Dr. George Turner: The Prime Minister has already referred to the problems that the banks are bringing to many of our communities. As the Postal Services Bill is making its way to the other place, does he believe that the other side of the coin is ensuring that the post offices can be the saviours of community banking? Will he assure the House and my constituents that the Government will do everything in their power to make sure that they can do so?

The Prime Minister: We remain fully committed to the network of nationwide post offices and we want to see them thrive. For that very reason, we have worked with the Post Office to install some 3,000 cash machines nationally at post offices in smaller towns and villages. The first 400 will be installed this summer. We are also working with the Post Office for a longer-term strategy to make sure that we can carry on with the sensible changes to and modernisation of the Post Office that allows those post offices to remain central to local communities.

Mr. Robert Walter: I was in my constituency this morning and village post offices were again the topic of conversation. As the Prime Minister has said, he is making some moves in that direction, but can he guarantee that no village post office in my constituency will close in 2003?

The Prime Minister: I can scarcely contemplate the cheek of the Conservative party: it asks for a commitment when it was responsible for closing hundreds of rural post offices when it was in office. We will carry on working to make sure that they have a secure future, but let us be clear about the changes on automatic credit transfer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited that investment


from the previous Government. The reason for those changes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the truth. It was inherited from the previous Government. As a result of it, many of the transaction costs will be reduced. However, we have made it clear that those who want to get their benefits in cash will carry on being able to do so and we will sit down with the people in the Post Office and work out a viable way forward for the future.
We need to make the changes because they are the right changes to make, but we will do everything in our power to safeguard rural post offices. We are not going to take lessons from a Conservative party that closed the rural post offices and is now mounting a completely opportunistic campaign when the very authors of the pressure on the post offices today sit on the Opposition side of the House of Commons.

Point of Order

Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, at business questions last week, the Leader of the House anticipated that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would wish to keep the House informed of the progress of his discussions on Rover-BMW. We are aware from the press of the meetings that he has had. Have you yet received any request from him to make a statement or to inform the House of the progress that he may have made?

Madam Speaker: No, I have not been informed that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement. The hon. Lady will have heard the exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister today and she will know, like me, that the Secretary of State has to answer questions tomorrow. Perhaps she will try to catch my eye at that stage, when she might put a question or two to him.

Zoo Licensing (Amendment)

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 so as to make it unlawful to operate a circus except with the authority of a licence.
A few weeks ago, a scurrilous article appeared that claimed that the House of Commons was full of animals. It said that the Conservative Benches are full of dinosaurs, the Labour Benches full of sheep and the Liberal Benches full of dead parrots. As we all know, that clearly is not the case. The only animals in the House of which I am aware are the delightful guide dog of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the springer spaniels that sniff round the place before our proceedings start and the mouse or rat that decided to make an appearance on the Floor of the Chamber a few weeks ago.
Like other hon. Members, I am an animal lover and I keep pets of all varieties. My animals, for various reasons, are able to do a number of tricks, which seem to involve giving them food. My dog will do anything if he is given food. I breed various birds and when I enter the aviaries I am a cross between the birdman of Alcatraz and St. Francis. All the birds fly to me and take food from my hand. My fish are also very keen to receive food. I also breed budgerigars. One called Perky Playle, which I gave to some friends, speaks about five languages. Its owners say that they have not spent any time teaching it to talk, but it seems to have a wide repertoire. None of the activities that I have described are cruel in any way; indeed, they demonstrate love for animals.
Some hon. Members may inadvertently have visited circuses featuring animals. It is bizarre to see whips being used on tigers and other animals to make them do all sorts of things that they do not seem to enjoy at all. A few years ago I went to a French circus, not realising that live animals would be involved. A goat was made to keep climbing on to tiny stools until it was high in the air—I do not know how high, but what was being done to it and to other animals was cruel beyond belief. I am presenting my Bill for those and other reasons.
Three events that have gained public attention are the publication of the Animal Defenders document "The Ugliest Show on Earth"—I am sure that hon. Members recall the campaign during which we received postcards; the unfortunate conviction of Mary Chipperfield for cruelty to her chimpanzee; and the report by the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare on the welfare of circus animals in England and Wales. Sadly, the group was unable to reach any conclusion on three options: a complete ban on the use of animals, specific legislation for animal welfare in circuses, and no change at all. My Bill addresses those three points. I think it unfortunate that nothing has been done so far.
The Bill would bring all circuses using performing wild animals—domestic animals would not be covered—within the purview of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, by removing the circus exemption in the Act. The Act was passed two years before I became a Member of Parliament; I therefore accept no blame for the exemption, but I am advised that the definitions of domestic and circus animals were somewhat confused. Twenty years on, it seems sensible to remove the exemption.
Section 1(2) of the Act defines "zoo" as
an establishment where wild animals (as defined by section 21) are kept for exhibition to the public otherwise than for the purpose of a circus.
Section 21 defines wild animals as
animals not normally domesticated in Great Britain.
Under the simple licensing regime that I propose, a circus owner would apply for a licence under the 1981 Act from his or her local authority. The circus would therefore require a registered address. I am told that bogus addresses are often used from a London base. The existing legislation does not require registered addresses. The licence would be issued on the basis of recommendations in reports made by zoo inspectors nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State. A licence could be refused if the local authority were not satisfied that standards of accommodation, staffing or management were adequate, or if the applicant—either an individual or corporate body or its representative, or any person employed as a keeper—had been prosecuted under this or any other legislation involving the ill-treatment of animals.
Finally, the local authority would be able to attach any conditions that it considered necessary to the proper conduct of the circus: for instance, training, staff competence, veterinary standards and animal husbandry. I am grateful for the advice that I have received from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Bill would require a registered address, which would allow a proper record to be kept of the number of circuses in the United Kingdom. That would help to establish information regarding the number of animals working in circuses and provide up-to-date records on the number of touring circuses.
It would also improve the welfare standards for wild animals while in winter quarters. Many hon. Members will be only too well aware of the little crowds that gather around some circus animals during winter. Doubts are expressed about the way in which they are looked after.

Those quarters would be required to be licensed and would be inspected periodically. They would have to comply with the same standards as zoos. The standards would be devised by experts on the latest scientific and animal behavioral research.
The health and safety of the public would be addressed by standards relating to security of accommodation for those animals. Circus holding or training centres would be covered by the Act, improving the standards for animals while not touring as part of the circus.
The Act would specifically not outlaw performances by wild animals for the purpose of public entertainment. I am not saying that I would not want that but, as a politician, I believe that politics is the art of the possible. That is why I am advancing these measures.
The Bill would not prohibit circuses from performing with animals, or prevent touring and the use of beast wagons while touring. It would not prevent prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Individuals working in or owning zoos or circuses would still be prosecuted for cruelty under that Act—as Mary Chipperfield was. I hope that the House will welcome this short measure. I realise that, even if the House gives it a First Reading today, it will face many pitfalls on Friday afternoons, but it is an opportunity for the House to build on its splendid record on animal welfare and to make a difference for animals. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Norman Baker, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Tim Loughton, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Martin Salter and Mr. Tim Yeo.

ZOO LICENSING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 so as to make it unlawful to operate a circus except with the authority of a licence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday, 14 April, and to be printed [Bill 101].

Orders of the Day — Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered

Ordered,
That the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 15, Clauses 75 and 76, Schedule 8, Clauses 16 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 29, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 6, Clause 63, Schedule 7, Clauses 64 to 68, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 69 to 74, New Clauses relating to Chapter I of Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 30 and 31, Schedule 4, Clauses 32 to 39, New Clauses relating to Chapter II of Part H, amendments relating to Clauses 40 to 51, Schedule 5, New Clauses relating to Chapter III of Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 52 to 56, Remaining New Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 77 and 78, Schedule 9, Clauses 79 and 80, New Schedules.—[Mr. Rooker]

New Clause 4

PRIORITY COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE

'In the Child Support Act 1991 there shall be inserted after section 43 the following section—
43A. In exercising his powers under sections 29 to 43 of this Act the Secretary of State shall ensure that such powers are exercised with a view to securing the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance from those non-resident parents who have failed to pay any amount of child support maintenance and that this duty is accorded priority over the collection and enforcement of child support maintenance from those non-resident parents who have made some payments of child support maintenance.".'.—[Mr. Pickles.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Deduction of earnings orders—
'.—There shall be substituted for section 31(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 the following—
(3) A deduction of earnings order shall be made so as to secure the payment both of arrears of child support maintenance payable under the maintenance calculation and amounts of child support maintenance which will become due.".'.
Amendment No. 89, in clause 16, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
'(1A) After section 39A of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted—
.—(1) In either of the circumstances mentioned in section 39A(1) the magistrates' court may of its own motion order such of the measures mentioned in (2) as it thinks fit.
(2) The measures mentioned in (1) are—
(a) an order that any welfare benefits that the liable person is in receipt of at the time of the application be reduced by such amount as the Court thinks fit;
(b) a warrant of execution in respect of any goods owned by the liable person;

(c) a home detention curfew of like effect to an order as could be made under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or;
(d) a community service order.
(3) When making an application under section 39A the Secretary of State shall provide to the magistrates' court a statement setting out which welfare benefits the liable person is in receipt of and the amounts thereof.".'.
Government amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 76, in clause 19, page 20, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
'(i) a maximum of 20 per cent. of any relevant benefit received by the parent for the first six months;
(ii) a maximum of 10 per cent. of any relevant benefit received by the parent for a remaining twelve months;
and the maximum period, without possibility of extension, is eighteen months.'.

Mr. Pickles: I am sorry. I nearly got to my feet when the order of consideration motion was moved formally, Madam Speaker. Members nearly had the opportunity to hear my speech twice.
These matters relate to enforcement. We are here to help the Government to meet their straightforward promises. The other night, I had the pleasure of seeing the Minister of State in the Lobby. He asked whether I had been reading any interesting books with which I might entertain the House. Indeed I have. I had the opportunity to read a Labour party document that was first published in October 1996, entitled "Children First: Reforming Child Support". It is pretty thin on plot, but it is the progenitor of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. Given that I am also interested in the cinema, I could say that if that document was the novel, the Bill is the screenplay. As in most cases, there is a considerable difference between the novel and the screenplay. We want to go back to the Labour party's original proposals.
The document makes the following clear statement:
We will insist that the agency reaches demanding targets to protect taxpayers' interests.
We would all applaud that. It continues:
Our initial target will be to ensure that an additional 100,000 absent parents pay maintenance.
That is exactly what new clause 4 seeks to achieve and would be in the interests of the Child Support Agency.
When the Bill becomes law, two systems will operate concurrently. Tonight, we shall be asked to approve a system that will force parents to make payments that we consider to be essentially unfair, as the old system will operate side by side with the new one. The true beneficiaries—not the intended ones—will therefore be those who have paid nothing. We want to ensure that those who have made and continue to make contributions are not made out to be mugs. Parents who have obeyed the law and sought to meet their obligations must not be placed at a disadvantage compared with those who have attempted to evade their responsibilities. New clause 4 seeks to wipe the smiles off the faces of parents who have not taken financial responsibility for their children.
I quote with approval the document "Children First: Reforming Child Support" which states:
We start with the basic principle that parents, not the taxpayer should have the main responsibility for supporting their children.


Parents who bring children into the world must accept that they have a responsibility. They have an obligation to look after their child until adulthood and to support that child financially.
Amendment No. 89 deals with curfew orders and other matters. On Second Reading there was a certain amount of criticism from all parts of the House of the Government's proposals to take away people's driving licences if they committed an offence under the Bill. Not a single speech—not even from the most loyal Back Bencher—said that that was a good idea. There was an earlier suggestion that people's passports should be taken away also, but that idea has been dropped from the Bill, perhaps owing to the mess in the UK Passport Agency. The Minister of State, Home Office might have ended up taking away everyone's passport. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) once receiving a briefing about the Medellin cartel, a drugs cartel that operates in Colombia. Someone in one of the five accountancy firms used by the cartel was leaking information about the cartel. The cartel could not work out which accountant was leaking, so it decided to execute all five of the accountants involved in its affairs. Although I am sure that, whatever we may think of our accountants, we all agree that that was an overreaction, the point is that the Government seem to be diminishing the value of removing passports as a penalty by failing to issue them initially.
The problem with the Bill is that it provides for no penalties other than a fine and/or imprisonment and loss of driving licence. Amendment No. 89 provides new penalties, thereby allowing flexibility. The amendment is essentially similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee—I see the Minister nodding vigorously. That amendment briefly took her fancy—she thought that it might be a good idea—until she got back to the Department, where it was discussed. I received a nice note back saying that it was not the Government's policy to make such a provision. I shall come back to that matter in a few moments, because I think that the Government are making a mistake. Our proposal would provide flexibility.
The proposal to remove driving licences has been heavily criticised. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, Mr. Jonathan Simpson of the RAC makes four principal criticisms of the proposal. I shall summarise the points, as it would be tedious to read them out. He says that there has always been a case for disqualifying motorists as a penalty for motoring offences such as dangerous or bad driving. Such a penalty is directly related to the offence, and is therefore obviously justifiable and acceptable in the eyes of the public. However, as the RAC points out, failure to comply with a maintenance order is an entirely different matter. The RAC is concerned that the application of the penalty in maintenance cases will be the beginning of a slippery slope, and that the penalty will in future be applied to various non-driving offences. The RAC goes as far as to suggest that a motorist could face disqualification for dropping litter.
The RAC also believes that removing someone's driving licence could end that person's ability to earn a living. Not unreasonably, the RAC concludes that application of the penalty could reduce those people's

prospects of being able to make regular maintenance payments. If people cannot commute to work or perform their duties at work because they no longer have a driving licence, their ability to provide reasonable sums will be diminished.
The RAC makes another suggestion, for which I have no sympathy. It says that the provision may well cause an increase in the number of those who drive a motor car while disqualified. That may or may not be true. However, I do not think that such a possibility is a valid reason for suggesting that the provision should not be made.
We criticise the provision quite simply because it lacks flexibility. Additionally, it seems ridiculous to place on the same level the penalty of loss of driving licence and the penalty of fine and/or imprisonment. The Bill makes loss of licence an alternative to imprisonment, not an addition to it.
Our proposal extends the range of available penalties. We are praying in aid the Prime Minister's suggestion that electronic tagging should be extended to domestic violence and stalking offenders. Frankly, it is a natural extension to apply the measure to the Child Support Agency to get getting people into the habit of paying and acting responsibly.
An article on 7 September in "Justice of the Peace" asked whether it was necessary or desirable to keep an offender away from undesirable associates at, for example, football matches, rallies or clubs. Essentially, the proposal is for a curfew order: we are saying that someone will not be able to go to football on a Saturday afternoon, pour their earnings down their throats or go clubbing at the weekend. The offender's first call will be his child maintenance payments. The article asked also whether the offender indulged in irresponsible leisure activities.
The proposal is part of an established pattern of getting people to accept their responsibilities. The Minister has said that the Government do not want to start mixing criminal and civil sanctions, and that they would not table an amendment to that effect. I am used to accepting disappointments, but the House will be disappointed too.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Amendment No. 89 states that the court has the power to reduce the amount of benefit that someone may have to pay. The hon. Gentleman's intention is to get people to pay more, but his proposal effectively encourages people who want to put off paying, as they will always think that the magistrates court will bail them out in the end—particularly bearing in mind the fact that there is no provision in the amendment to allow the parent with care to make representations to the magistrates court. Is not the amendment effectively creating an appeal to the court through the back door?

Mr. Pickles: No, it is not. It is an attempt to make some sense of the Bill, and to offer the courts the opportunity of a wider range for breaches of sanction, other than imprisonment or a fine. After all, these matters would apply only where there was an application for default. This is not something that will arise in the normal course of events in which the parent with care and the non-resident parent discuss the financial future of their children. It will come into play where someone is in default. The amendment is not a way in which the


non-resident parent can apply through the back door. It gives the courts a greater degree of flexibility, and seeks to strike a balance and to ensure that someone gets into the habit of regular payment, gets back to a degree of social responsibility and recognises that the Child Support Agency is not a soft touch.
Under the legislation as drafted, people have a choice between losing their driving licences or going to jail. I suspect that most people will opt to lose their licences. After all, people who are not in the regular habit of using a motor vehicle might consider that to be a way of getting off scot free. We are seeking to achieve a balance.
The new clause is not set in stone, as it might not work exactly as we hope. It has been tabled to stimulate debate and to get the Minister to expand on her letter to me. However, I hope that she will accept that our intention is to extend the enforcement powers of the CSA, not to give people a way out by the back door.

4 pm

Mr. Frank Field: The whole House wants the reform to work, so I am anxious to know what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. Does he mean to establish a menu of penalties that the CSA could use, or is he proposing that the CSA must take certain actions in certain circumstances?

Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman's first suggestion is what we want to achieve. We want to extend the menu of actions available to the CSA. At present, there are only the extremes of losing a driving licence or going to prison, with the option of a fine somewhere in the middle. We want a graduated scale. Clearly, curfew orders will not work unless there is a reasonable anticipation that the people involved will abide by them. However, the Government are researching ways to extend such orders beyond their original application, which was as a way to help offenders released on licence to prepare to return to society.
It is extremely sensible to take into consideration domestic violence and stalking.

Mr. Simon Burns: I have been listening to my hon. Friend extremely carefully. The new clauses rightly make suggestions about how to strengthen the encouragement given to people to pay child maintenance. However, I am slightly worried that there is another side to that coin, involving a parent who pays the maintenance but who does not have access to the children of the relationship. Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill should tackle that equally important issue?

Mr. Pickles: A later group of amendments deals with the relationship between the non-resident parent and the parent with care. However, my hon. Friend is right to express concern that the Bill might well cause children to find themselves caught between parents feuding over financial matters. The Bill draws questions of access and finance close together, and means that it could be in one party's financial interest to keep a child over on a Sunday evening and to take it back to school on the Monday,

rather than returning it to the other party on the Sunday night. My hon. Friend has made a valid point about access.

Mr. Field: Am I right in thinking that the Opposition are proposing to add to the range of measures that CSA officials would have at their disposal to enforce the legislation when it is enacted?

Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is nearly right. Under the terms of amendment No. 87, CSA officials would have to apply to the court for enforcement of the proposed options. Excellent though the CSA is, anything else would be a step too far.
I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.

Mr. Burns: I rise to support new clause 4. I should like to describe the criticism that I have heard most often in constituency surgeries over the past eight years or so, whatever the views on the Child Support Act 1991 and on the Government's reforms before us today. The parent who pays child maintenance and complies with the Child Support Agency's assessment feels that he is a soft target because he does not seek to hide his financial responsibilities, whereas, in the early days, an organised, hard-core group sought to bring the child maintenance system to a grinding halt through their obstruction of the operations of the original CSA and to avoid paying any child maintenance whatever.
New clause 4, which would strengthen the powers of the CSA, is eminently sensible. It would take away the sense of unfairness and special targeting felt by a group who do not want to cause trouble and want to make a financial contribution to their children's upbringing.

Mr. Dismore: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. May I put a hypothetical question to him? What is the position of a person who pays £1 or £2 a week but is liable to pay considerably more and could therefore accrue substantial debts, as compared with a person who has to pay only a small amount in the first place and does not pay any? Which case does the hon. Gentleman think should be pursued first? The new clause suggests that the person to be pursued is the one paying nothing who has only a small amount to pay, whereas someone with a huge amount to pay could effectively avoid being caught by this proposal by paying a token amount.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman has raised a third issue. I was coming on to the issue of parents who pay. The person who pays nothing should be pursued because he is seeking to avoid all his financial responsibilities. Similarly, if an individual is playing the system at a minimal level to try to avoid his full financial responsibilities, he must also be pursued by the CSA.
The trouble with any legislation that contains an either/or option is that some people will seek to use the existing law to maximise their abuse of it, and we have here an example.

Mr. Pickles: rose—

Mr. Burns: If my hon. Friend wishes to tell us of another one, I shall give way to him with pleasure.

Mr. Pickles: I was merely going to suggest that that is one of the advantages of such a matter going before the


courts. The courts would take the view that such a person was attempting to get round the system. Someone who doles out £1 or £2 a week is playing around. That example further strengthens the need for the new clause.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have all had examples over the past eight or nine years of people who have played the system, or sought to play the system, to avoid their financial responsibilities.
There is one point on which I am confused, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is not. I should like clarification. To give priority to those individuals who make no financial contribution above those who are making a full and proper contribution must not also mean that the administrative systems of the CSA fall behind, thus inadvertently causing problems for those who want to pay the full amount, but are still awaiting assessment for payment, or waiting to have an assessment confirmed.

Mr. Field: Does not the new clause have one real disadvantage? Let us take our mind into the next Parliament, where I expect that the hon. Gentleman will still be sitting on the Opposition Benches and Labour will be on the Government Benches. The Opposition will be looking for the amount collected under the new Act. If we pass the new clause, one of the covers available to the Government would be that maintenance payments—or the rate of collection—had gone down because the Government were following the instructions given to them by the Opposition in the previous Parliament: that we should chase those from whom it is most difficult to obtain money and de-prioritise those from whom we can most easily get maintenance payments. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that?

Mr. Burns: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. However, in practice that need not be true, although there is certainly a danger that it may be. If the CSA is properly staffed and managed, the problem would not necessarily arise. It remains to be seen whether the reforms will work, but the Government maintain that the system will be so much simpler and so much more transparent than the old one that the previous problems in administering it will not occur. They argue that those who have to pay child maintenance will understand what they are being asked to pay and that the complicated formula that we set up—believing that it would be fairer on parents—will be cut away. The system should be easier.
According to that argument, CSA staff should be able to handle their work load more easily because of the simplification and transparency of the system. A disproportionate amount of time and effort would not thus be spent on chasing the obstreperous or the non-payer. There would be a two-track system. It remains to be seen whether that happens—as with so many matters in the relatively short history of the CSA.
However, we must lance the boil that has caused so much agony and antagonism among so many parents who have held out, delayed and refused to pay for such a long time. Even if the new clause needs some improvement—with Government help—it would be a positive step forward in improving the legislation.

Mr. Steve Webb: Amendment No. 76, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, relates to the position

of women who do not want to name the father, and to their concerns about violence. That is an important issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) hopes to speak if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker.
In my contribution, I shall respond to the amendments and new clauses tabled by Conservative Members. They raise some important issues.
The spirit of new clause 4 appears to touch that raw nerve about which we have all heard in our surgeries—the fathers who say, "I pay and I'm being chased, but I know someone else who doesn't pay a penny and he seems to be left alone." For the reasons that have been given—including the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—the new clause is problematic. How will the prioritisation work? Would people who paid something be left alone, and would that cause problems? It is hard to see how that form of words would work.
However, the Conservatives raised one general issue to which I should like to hear the Minister's response. What are the targets set for the agency? As with so many Government targets, do they distort priorities in a way that we would not want? Just as the infant class size target has distorted junior class sizes, and just as the in-patient waiting list target has distorted out-patient waiting lists, is there a danger that targets expressed in amounts of maintenance collected will distort by encouraging the CSA to chase those who are most easy to chase?
4.15 pm
I am genuinely uncertain about the targets and incentives that the CSA is set. Will the Minister assure the House that such incentives will encourage the CSA to chase non-payers—such as one requiring it to increase the percentage of people who are paying any amount—as much as they do to increase total maintenance collected? I hope that she can offer that reassurance. In the absence of such provision, the problem that the Conservatives have raised will continue. Many fathers who are doing their best to pay legitimately feel that others are getting away with doing nothing.
New clause 5 refers to deduction of earnings orders. I did not catch much reference to its aims in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I am not entirely clear what it would achieve. I would be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he wants to elaborate on the matter.

Mr. Pickles: The new clause simply tries to improve the way in which deduction of earnings orders are levied. It is no more complicated than that.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful; I had assumed that, although how it would do so is still not clear to me.
My main concerns relate to amendment No. 89 and the long list of seemingly draconian measures to pursue non-payers. I notice the term "curfew" popping up and various other quite serious penalties for non-payment. I find myself asking in what respect is child support debt different from other debt. That is a fundamental question. Most of the specific penalties, such as the withdrawal of driving licences and the imposition of curfews, that we are introducing for child support debt would not apply to any other debt.
If I, as a tenant, owed a former landlord some money, I could be pursued through the courts by a deduction of earnings order and various other measures, but he could not apply to the court to put me under a curfew. Why would someone owing money in one sphere be subject to draconian attacks on liberties when someone owing money in another sphere would not be so? I am not sure that child support debt is different in substance, which is why I have reservations about the application of such penalties only to such debt.
It could be argued that the taxpayer has an interest. If so, there may be a case for restricting the imposition of such severe penalties to cases that result in the public purse losing out—although there is no indication of that in the amendment. I am not convinced that the case has been made for those very severe penalties to be applied peculiarly to child support debt. No argument has been made that it is so different from other debt. I am sure that we would not want to apply such sentences to other debt.
We very much sympathise with the spirit of new clause 4. Although its provisions would not work practically, we would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that the agency's targets recognise the genuine public concern about people who do not pay and give it an incentive to chase such people just as hard.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will be able to address our concerns about women who fear violence.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall address the point raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb): in what way does the offence of owning child support debt differ from offences of owing other debt? I would say that the difference is this: child support debt is the most unnatural of crimes. We are talking of people who are not prepared to make provision for their own children. Therefore, I entirely understand the Government's desire to impose such strange punishments as the withdrawal of driving licences. I entirely understand the motive that lies behind the introduction of a new order of penalty to deal with a specific and unnatural crime.
My difficulty with the penalty is that it introduces a new principle into our criminal justice system. In this country, the penalties available to punish miscreants are generally understood. The principal ones are the deprivation of liberty, the deprivation of finance through fines and the deprivation of time through the imposition of community service orders. Withdrawing a driving licence is of a different order because the penalty would not effect everyone in the same way that the deprivation of liberty or the removal of finance or time does. Some people who owe child support debt do not possess a driving licence or own a car. Therefore, the ability to withdraw a driving licence would affect them differentially from other people. It would have no impact on them at all.
I prefer amendment No. 89 because it would provide a menu of penalties that would affect the miscreants in a way that is appropriate and consistent across the board. We had this discussion in Committee when we debated benefit withdrawal and the Government quite rightly responded to our suggestions that we should withdraw benefit by saying, "Ah, but what about those people who do not receive benefit? They would be affected

differentially. That would be unfair and unjust." I suggest that exactly the same argument applies to the desire to withdraw a driving licence. The menu of penalties in amendment No. 89 is far preferable.

Mr. Andrew George: My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke to amendment No. 76 and, depending on the Minister's response, I wish to flag up our desire to hold open the possibility of pressing that amendment to a separate vote.
The benefit penalty applicable to parents with care who refuse to divulge information about a former partner has been set at 40 per cent. for a number of years and it can apply to someone for an indefinite period. As I understand it, the Government intend to continue that approach. The amendment would restore the position to what it was when the benefit penalty for non-disclosure was a 20 per cent. maximum reduction for the first six months and a 10 per cent. maximum reduction for the ensuing 12 months with no possibility of extension beyond the total 18-month period.
There are several arguments against the withdrawal of benefit at a 40 per cent. rate. I welcome the Government's general claims and their obvious commitment to prioritising the ending of domestic violence, but they seemed determined that women who seek to avoid domestic violence should be coerced into financial dependence on violent partners. Amendment No. 71 has to be read in conjunction with amendment No. 81, which we shall debate later. I appreciate that the Minister objects to my comments, but matters of deep concern are involved. Assurances given by Ministers need to be deepened to reassure the many organisations concerned about domestic violence that the CSA will be able to deal effectively, robustly and sensitively with these difficult issues.

Mr. Swayne: We rehearsed those arguments in Committee, but I fear that the amendment in the hon. Gentleman's name would let off the hook the worst category of father: those who threaten physical violence. By providing that means of escape, we are accommodating the problem rather than trying to tackle it.

Mr. George: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is a question of getting the balance right. Many domestic violence cases lead to the murder of women, but there are also organisations that, rightly, campaign on a broad front to ensure that women do not make malicious and trumped-up allegations to avoid the father having contact, although I realise that that point is different from the one made by the hon. Gentleman.
How many more murders resulting from domestic violence need to take place before people appreciate the need to tighten up the legislation further? I hope that we will explore this argument a little more in the debate on amendment No. 81. Men may make violent threats in an attempt to get out of their responsibilities, but violent threats are followed through with tragic results, as we have seen far too often.
Amendment No. 76 is an anti-poverty amendment, and has to be read alongside amendment No. 81. There are four strong arguments against the Government's proposal for a benefit penalty. First, it will push children into poverty. The case is as simple and clear-cut as that.


A 40 per cent. reduction in benefit for a single parent pushes the family's income 40 per cent. below the income support level. How does the Minister view that in the light of the Government's honourable efforts in establishing the social exclusion unit and their key priority to reduce and remove childhood poverty? The proposal will clearly work against that.
The proposal will penalise the children whom the child support system is designed to support. If a low-income family loses income, everybody in the family suffers. The Government will be unable to prevent the parent with care from intentionally or unintentionally making the child bear the burden of that income loss. These are the people who can least afford to lose income. Two thirds of children in one-parent families in the UK are poor, compared with a quarter of children in two-parent families. Income support is set at a level that is supposed to be the absolute minimum for survival, but the Government propose to push families below that level.
Secondly, and equally importantly, non-disclosure is not necessarily an indication that the parent with care is taking money on the quiet from the non-resident parent. Although there will be fraud in the system, it is wrong to approach the issue on the assumption that everybody who, by commission or omission, does not fit into the normative scenario is on the fiddle. The Government have never produced evidence to support that assumption.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that the punitive approach has succeeded. The last increase in the severity and length of the benefit penalty was accompanied by a significant increase in non-compliance. The penalty particularly hits lone parents who believe, for whatever reason, that it is not in the interests of their children to co-operate with the CSA. Slapping a benefit penalty on them is unlikely to change their minds; it will drive them further away from the system.
4.30 pm
I shall cite two case studies in support of my argument. The first involves a lone parent who suffers agoraphobia and depression as a result of repeated assaults by her ex-husband, to whom she was married for 10 years. She also suffers from dyslexia. Until she sought advice, she was completely unaware that there were any exemptions from the requirement to co-operate. Her ex-husband still has some contact with the children, but she is terrified of him. She receives incapacity benefit and income support. Although she received several letters from the CSA, she did not respond to any of them because she was frightened and depressed; as a result, however, she was threatened with a benefit penalty. With the help of an adviser, she won her case at a tribunal, even though initially she was reluctant to appeal because she was too afraid.
In the second case, a lone parent with two sons, aged six and eight, was notified that a benefit penalty would be imposed because the CSA did not accept that she was exempt. She had been threatened by her ex-partner, who told her that, if she co-operated with the CSA, he would withdraw contact with the children. Her sons had suffered badly from his previously having withdrawn contact for one year; they had exhibited signs of intense distress. The woman had only just re-established that contact. She argues that her children are at risk of undue distress,

but that argument has been rejected by the CSA. She is now in turmoil, taking antidepressants, while awaiting an appeal against the benefit penalty.
The system causes hardship to the very children whom it is meant to support. Children in one-parent families are among the poorest in the land, and their parents can ill afford to lose a significant proportion of the already small sum on which they are expected to live. That is why we tabled our amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I shall try to deal with the issues as they were raised during the debate. They are quite wide ranging, but I shall do my best.
New clause 4 is designed to influence the way in which the CSA organises its resources in respect of collection and enforcement activities. The agency would have to take action against non-resident parents who have made no child support maintenance payments, who comprise 30 per cent. of the current case load, before turning to those who are partially compliant, who comprise 23 per cent. of the case load. I understand why the Opposition have been motivated to set out such priorities.
My argument has already been touched on by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns): the solution lies in the simplification of the CSA's business and process that the Bill will bring about. Under the current, complex formula, the CSA spends 90 per cent. of its time on collection and only 10 per cent. on enforcement. Under the new system, much more of the CSA's time will be spent on proper enforcement of maintenance agreements, once they are reached.

Mr. Burns: Is there not a problem with relying on good nature and the simplicity of the system? No matter how much simpler the new system is to operate, if the parent who has to pay child maintenance does not like the amounts, he will attempt to avoid paying by delaying or employing some other method. There will still be a huge backlog because of resistance on the part of paying parents.

Angela Eagle: There are fewer ways to stymie the new simplified system than there are to stymie the current complex formula. I cannot guarantee that there will never be a backlog, but we believe that, once the new formula is in place and the CSA is up and running at full speed, maintenance assessments will be made within four to six weeks, instead of the current six months.

Mr. Burns: The Minister refers to the formula, but it will not stop those parents who think that they know how much they will have to pay having no contact with the CSA, replying to letters or demands for information by querying them or not supplying all the information, or not supplying accurate and correct information. Those problems will still remain, however simple the system is, if a group of people want deliberately to string out or avoid paying.

Angela Eagle: Of course some things can be strung out. My argument with the new clause is that it creates a priority list that demonstrates to people that, if they pay something, however little, the CSA will leave them alone while it chases other people. I think that we can pick up everybody. Some people will be more obstructive than


others, but the changes to the system will give the CSA more space and time to focus on chasing those who, in the past, have got off scot-free. The old CSA got into many difficulties administering the formula that it had been given.

Mr. Pickles: The Minister seems to suggest that the new clause represents the Opposition's policy. In fact, it reflects what was the Labour party's policy. Will she explain how the target of catching up with the 100,000 who are not making a contribution will be met? How will she target them? Surely she is not saying that the simplified formula alone, which we support, will achieve the target? People are avoiding making payments because they have no intention of doing so, and not because of the formula. If the hon. Lady will take us through how the target will be achieved, I am sure that we shall make rapid progress.

Angela Eagle: The present system involves more than 100 different facts being established before a maintenance order can properly be calculated. Changes of circumstances happen so regularly that the assessment can virtually be out of date before it can be administered and notified to those who are responsible for paying it. The proposed formula is radically simpler. It will be necessary to establish the number of children and the income of the father, and then make a simple calculation. It will leave the CSA with much more time to pursue the more difficult cases.
We want to ensure that non-resident parents will all meet their responsibilities for their children, and make regular and reliable payments of maintenance. We do not want to create perverse incentives to pay a little so that fathers are not chased for the rest, while people who have disappeared from the system—there will always be difficult cases in any system—are left to be pursued at length. That is not appropriate. Our priority is to ensure that all fathers make the proper payments.
The provision proposed in new clause 5—

Mr. Webb: I asked the Minister a specific question on new clause 4 about the agency's incentives and the targets that it is given. Presumably, targets are set to try to make the agency prioritise particular actions. Do the agency's targets encourage it to pursue non-payers?

Angela Eagle: The targets relate not to the amounts of maintenance paid but to the speed and accuracy of assessment, which is the main work that the CSA does with 90 per cent. of its time and to case and cash compliance. With the new system, we shall be able to take a completely new look at how the targets operate. Clearly, we would not wish to establish targets that would create incentives for odd results. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point.
We are asked in new clause 5 to put in place a provision that already exists in section 31 of the Child Support Act 1991, which allows for a deduction from earnings order to be made in respect of the current maintenance liability, plus an amount for arrears. About 98 per cent. of the almost 130,000 deductions from earnings orders in force cover arrears as well as current liability. Those figures are from November last year, and are our most recent ones. New clause 5 is unnecessary because what is sought is already done.
We all know that the complexities of the current formula leave the agency with little time for collecting maintenance, which is why a radical simplification has been brought before the House.
Amendment No. 76 would reduce and time-limit reduced benefit decisions. Because of the way in which it is drafted, it would also reduce the benefit of the parent with care by 20 per cent. of the whole. The 40 per cent. reduction in place relates only to the adult applicable allowance, so the proposed 20 per cent. represents a higher proportion.
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), one would think that good cause did not exist, but it does and it works effectively. If there are cases around the edge that he wishes to bring to my attention, we shall examine them.
The plain fact is that if a woman suspects that, by engaging the CSA, she may be in danger of violent behaviour from her ex-partner, that constitutes good cause. There is no way that the CSA will pursue maintenance if she can show good cause for its not pursuing it.
The issue of sanctions and reduced benefit decisions involves parents with care who refuse to get the CSA involved, and are happy for the taxpayer to pay for the upkeep of their children, without good cause. In other words, they are not in danger of a violent reaction from their ex-partners. The benefit deductions are designed to persuade those people to come into the system.
We do not believe that payment of child support should be optional, and that people should be able to choose. That is partly to protect the taxpayer. It ought to be the exception, rather than the rule, that child support is not in payment.

Mr. Swayne: Where it is shown that there is good cause, is that not a matter for referral to the police for investigation? It cannot be left that someone should get off, just by making such a threat.

Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour, and we should not kowtow to it by setting up a system that seems to create incentives for people to behave in that way. I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his earlier intervention.
When the good cause definitions were changed from 10 and 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. in 1996, 70 per cent. of parents with care initially claimed that they had good cause not to co-operate with the CSA. That point has been raised more than once by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Parents have a responsibility to support their children. The benefits system should step in only when they are unable to do so. Child support should not be optional. The underlying purpose of a reduced benefit direction is to encourage parents with care to apply for child support, unless they have good reason or good cause not to do so.
We believe that a benefit penalty of 40 per cent. of the adult applicable amount in income support, which is not the whole amount of benefit and certainly not that which would be allocated for the children, is set at the right level to achieve that.
About 85 per cent. of parents with care claiming benefit co-operate with the CSA in seeking maintenance, which compares with only 30 per cent. who used to co-operate. This total turn-around, which has occurred in a very short time and is an extremely positive development, is due in part to the improved closer working arrangements between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. It is a real achievement.
Since April 1999, Benefits Agency staff assist new income support clients in completing maintenance application forms where appropriate. That means that clients need give information to the Department only once. However, the fact remains that some parents with care refuse to co-operate with the agency without good cause, so we need to retain a meaningful penalty provision. It would be unfair on children if we did not impose sanctions on parents with care who unreasonably prevent—I stress, unreasonably prevent—the recovery of child support.
We are very conscious of the need to protect vulnerable parents and their children. As I said earlier, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the parent with care or any child living with her would suffer harm or undue distress as a result of pursuing child support, no penalty will be imposed.

Mr. George: Prior to the improvement in the CSA's record, how many of the parents not co-operating with the CSA were claiming good cause?

Angela Eagle: I do not know the figures off the top of my head, but I shall give them to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
I was about to share with the House the drop, as a percentage of case load, in the number of people on reduced benefit directions. That has come down from 19 per cent. in 1997–98 to 9 per cent. now, and we hope to bring it down even further.
In Committee, Opposition Members tabled an amendment proposing that the courts should be able to impose a curfew or a community service order for refusal to pay child support maintenance, with which I had some sympathy, and I agreed to see whether we could frame amendments to achieve that aim. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has the letter that I sent to him after careful, not perfunctory, consideration. I was anxious to see whether that could be done.
Unfortunately, sanctions such as curfews or community service orders are penalties for criminal offences and non-payment of child support is a civil issue. Extending the Bill as Opposition Members suggest would mean importing into the civil system all the legislative and operational arrangements that apply to the criminal courts. For example, probation officers would have to provide pre-sentencing reports and the mechanics surrounding electronic tagging where private sector firms are appointed to monitor the arrangements.
The effect of that would be to superimpose on the civil system virtually all the penalties available in the criminal courts, and we would lose the distinction between magistrates sitting in their civil and criminal capacities.

We considered the matter carefully, but we could find no way to legislate for such penalties without superimposing the criminal system on the civil system.

Mr. Burns: It may assist the hon. Lady if I draw to her attention the precedent of curfews imposed in certain parts of our towns and cities to keep young people off the streets at night. I understand that that has been done under the civil, not the criminal, law.

Angela Eagle: That is not my information, but I shall check.

Mr. Swayne: Given what I describe as the unnatural nature of what I believe is a crime—the determination not to make a financial provision for one's own offspring—would it not be appropriate for the hon. Lady to impose a criminal penalty when the Bill is reintroduced in the other place?

Angela Eagle: That is the hon. Gentleman's view, but I have looked at the matter carefully and I do not think that it would be appropriate to make non-payment of child support a criminal offence. I shall explain why.
Criminal sanctions are about punishment. Child support is about doing what is best for children and encouraging fathers to pay maintenance and, hopefully, in most circumstances, to play a full part in their children's lives. That would not be achieved by criminalising the non-payment of child support. The downside of that outweighs the positive effects that the hon. Gentleman outlines. I realise that people might have a different view, but that is the view that I take.

Mr. Pickles: I recognise that the hon. Lady understands the benefits of such a measure and rejects it reluctantly, but will she confirm that taking away a driving licence is an alternative to imprisonment? If so, I do not understand the difference between imprisoning someone and imposing a curfew order. As the hon. Lady supports our objective, she must have received legal advice, so perhaps she would share it with us.

Angela Eagle: Clearly, the courts have to decide when someone comes before them whether he or she has culpably and neglectfully—I think that those are the words used in the legislation—declined to pay child support, so there must be on-going evidence of complete non-co-operation and refusal to accept responsibility. It is then up to the courts to determine the penalty: removing the driving licence or the ultimate sanction of committal to prison. Evidence from other countries and jurisdictions shows that removing a driving licence is an effective method of getting child support maintenance paid. We look forward to approving that when the sanction becomes available to the courts. However, it will be up to the courts to decide whether to effect it in every case.
I appreciate that Conservative Members are trying to be helpful in tabling the new clause; I genuinely tried to be helpful in seeking ways of including its substance that had no major implications for the criminal and civil court system. I could not do that, but I am glad that there is so much cross-party support for our aim of helping to eradicate child poverty by ensuring that all parents support their children.
I ask hon. Members to reject new clauses 4 and 5 and amendments Nos. 79 and 89 for the reasons that I outlined. Government amendment No. 40 would make technical changes to clause 16, which introduces a new civil penalty and gives the courts the power to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence when child support is not paid. It clarifies that the courts are required to notify the Secretary of State or, as he directs, the Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Agency when a disqualification order has been made, amended or lifted.

Mr. Burns: Would someone's driving licence be taken away in lieu of paying the money, or would it be an additional penalty to bring pressure on the person to pay? I hope that it is the latter.

Angela Eagle: It is not in lieu of paying the money. The simple way of retaining one's driving licence is to pay before the courts decide to take it away. We hope that that will be the penalty's DRIVE—Development of Rural Initiative, Venture and Enterprise [Wales] DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, effect. However, if payment continues not to be made, the courts can make another disqualification order.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does the Bill provide for offices to use the driving licence centre as a way of tracing individuals? If the driving licence is in the relevant individual's name, can the make of car he used as evidence about life style? I appreciate that the question moves the debate on, but I could not envisage another opportunity of raising the matter.

Angela Eagle: As always, my right hon. Friend is creative in his questions. I suspect that the answer is yes, but I want to check some data protection matters and be confident that I am right before issuing a ringing yes.

Mr. Pickles: The Minister has been very courteous. We got rather excited about the Bill in Committee and spent much time on curfew orders. We did not ask a question that perhaps we should have asked. Will the driving licence be removed for a period or until the debt is paid? Before the driving licence is restored, would the person have to resit a test?

Angela Eagle: I can answer a ringing no to the last question. The maximum period will be up to two years. However, the courts will consider specific circumstances when they decide whether to apply the penalty.

Mr. Pickles: The second part of my three-pipe question is, if the person repays the debt, will he receive the driving licence back immediately?

Angela Eagle: Yes, answered ringingly.

Mr. Swayne: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am not sure whether the Minister has concluded.

Angela Eagle: I have.

Mr. Pickles: Our discussion has been good and fair. Our new clause raises an important point. We share the view of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that we want an understanding about targets. When the Labour party was in opposition, it was clear that it would target non-payers. The Minister says, fairly and reasonably, that the new system will try to avoid spending 90 per cent. of the time on assessment, although we shall come to aspects of that which might make that statement appear a little bold, certainly at face value. I hope that she does not take offence, but I do not believe that the Government have given no thought to the new targets—which do not relate to assessment—and it would have been helpful to discuss targeting people who have made no contribution.
There is general agreement around the Chamber that we should go after such people and no sympathy on either side of the House for those who say, "I've paid a couple of quid a month so the CSA will leave me alone." There is a general test of reasonableness in that. We may probe some more, perhaps in the other place, but I emphasise that these are Labour's own targets. They were not merely thrown together. Non-payers are Labour's No. 1 target and the Government are going for them more than anything else so it is disappointing—I put it no more strongly than that—that they have not said how they will achieve that.
The Minister says that it would not be possible to implement amendment No. 89, our other major proposal. She thought it a good idea in the excitement in Committee, but does not seem terribly keen now. She says that it is complex and would involve probation officers' reports and this, that and the other, but I hope that she will have another word with the lawyers. If someone is to be sent to prison, reports have to be obtained. Our judicial system does not throw somebody in jail without making pre-sentencing inquiries.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people go to prison for civil offences. A person can be sent to prison without the whole criminal justice system being imported to the procedure that leads to imprisonment.

Mr. Pickles: I am aware of that. I am not being highly critical and, when I received the Minister's letter, I did not thump on her door and say, "You are being extremely unreasonable." However, we need to consider that matter.

Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way on the question of unreasonableness?

Mr. Pickles: Yes.

Mr. Swayne: It might be unfair to ask my hon. Friend this question, but the Minister sat down before I could ask it of her. If two individuals in identical circumstances had the same amount of debt, but one had no driving licence and the other had and that was withdrawn by the court, what compensating penalty would be imposed on the other, given that he would have no driving licence to withdraw? Would he be thrown in prison? Would that not be a penalty for not possessing a driving licence? In the interests of equity, we need answers to those questions.

Mr. John Bercow: He would lose his bus pass.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is a tough man, as always,


and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests that such a person would lose his bus pass. He almost certainly would not, but my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was not making a jocular point because there is a great discrepancy in the Bill. There is a difference between a light tap and a heavy penalty, and we seek a degree of grading.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) raised a legitimate point. She said, "If the Conservatives are right, the great panoply of the criminal law will be imposed on a simple matter." However, we are not saying that. We are considering what the Prime Minister has said. Curfew orders are straightforward and concern the release of a prisoner into the wider community. When a prisoner is released, various procedures are necessary: for instance, probation reports must be received.
5 pm
The Prime Minister is saying, "The orders have been quite successful; let us transfer them to other offences." The offences that the Government have identified are domestic violence, which is clearly criminal, and stalking, which is also clearly criminal. However, they are now considering extending such orders to the Child Support Agency. As the Minister said, we are not talking about those who are a bit behind with their contributions; we are talking about the person who says, "I do not care how many demands I receive. I am not going to pay."
If the Minister thinks that curfew orders are not appropriate, other options should be considered before the Bill completes its passage in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has suggested putting people's credit rating on their credit cards; other civil measures may be possible. What we are saying is that the penalties must contain a gradable element. If the legislation is to have teeth, it cannot be all or nothing: there must be something in between.
I hope that the Minister will take a long hard look at possible civil penalties, because the Government's proposals are not satisfactory. The measure involving driving licences is not sufficient by itself. I do not mean to be hurtful, but putting that measure on its own into the Bill makes it look ridiculous—and no legislation that aims to make people meet their responsibilities can afford to look ridiculous.
I hope that the Government will consider what I have said, and what improvements might be made in another place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: QUALITY STANDARD GUARANTEE

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above shall require the CSA to pay compensation to the person aggrieved when it fails to meet its obligations in respect of the target time; and shall set out the level of compensation payable.'.—[Mr. Pickles.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pickles: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, I do not want to be hurtful, but I think it fair to say that the CSA has not enjoyed the best of records in terms of reliability. In general, Members of Parliament are not specialists—we are jacks of all trades and masters of none—but one issue on which we have firm views is that of the CSA. Every Friday or Saturday, when we hold our constituency surgeries, someone arrives with something from the CSA. People either have a lot of little envelopes that have to be put in order, or, worse, they have put all the material in a big ring binder, and one's heart sinks.
I must add that I think there that has been an improvement. The CSA has made an effort. It has improved enormously in terms of answering the telephone, and—I am speaking for myself here—I have always found its officials to be tireless and diligent. I recognise that they have been operating in difficult circumstances.

Mr. Bercow: You are not making a confession.

Mr. Pickles: We must speak as we find. Others may have experienced difficulty, but I have always found the CSA's officials to be very polite.

Mr. Bercow: My point was simple. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his dealings with the agency have been on behalf of constituents and not, as it were, to plough his own furrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules of the House are simple, too: comments from a sedentary position are not helpful.

Mr. Pickles: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham was making a joke. I am sure that the time will come when I will be able to laugh at it. Of course I contacted the CSA on behalf of my constituents. I thank him for making that clear.
The new clause is about empowering the citizen. It will demonstrate to the citizen that something will happen if a mistake is made. There are important reasons for seeking to introduce the measure. It is a question of the Government putting our money where their mouth is. We have heard the Minister suggest that everything will be hunky-dory in the new system because the CSA will not spend its time going through the various forms, or making an assessment: it will be more about collections, so everything will speed up. We are not quite as convinced that we are about to gallop to sunlit uplands.
The Government predict that everything will be fine. We think that, under the new system that will come into operation, unless the Government make significant changes, the CSA will be swamped. The level of applications will increase significantly.
The reason is straightforward. The reforms will dig deep into middle England. We know that that land is much beloved of the Prime Minister. We know that Labour Back Benchers are keen to say, "What about our heartland? You have to stop pandering to middle England and start to look after our heartland." The Bill is not the place to start the great revolutionary march back to the heartlands. It is about filling our surgeries again with a new set of people, who have never dreamt of having any dealings with the CSA. There were enormous protests last time, but, in the words of the great Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
If the Government are right, there will be no problem with the new clause because few people will claim, but there will be a move to non-benefit cases. If there is no benefit case, the parties can reach an agreement without interference from the CSA. That is reasonable and sensible. The state will have no particular financial interest, other than the normal and reasonable collection of taxes.
However, once the Bill becomes an Act, 14 months' notice from the parent with care to the non-resident parent is all that is required, and then the CSA can suddenly take over the case. That is why the whole process will be swamped. The CSA will be a weapon in the fight between ex-spouses or ex-partners. We do not find that desirable. That is why people will need the redress that the new clause offers. We also envisage that it will create transfers between spouses by stealth, and that does not seem reasonable.
In other words, the provision will give a bonus to parents with care and enable them to get the maximum settlement. It might be a clean-break settlement as far as the spouses are concerned, but it can never be a clean break in respect of the children. There could be a considerable transfer of financial resources between the spouses, so the provision would give a distinct advantage to the parent with care. For instance, having received transferred resources, the parent with care could then go to the CSA and ask for an assessment. Despite previous transfers of wealth, the non-resident parent would be subject to another assessment. That is why the CSA could represent a big bonus to the parent with care. We never wanted that to happen, and no doubt nor do the Government, but the potential is there.
The system will be swamped as a result of the nature of the proposed changes. They include fixed bands that replace a fairly complex process of assessment. As I have told the Minister on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we support that proposal. However, there will also be a reduction in the number of variations or departures from the scheme. The new clause is necessary because, in many ways, the provision replicates a mistake by the previous Conservative Administration. We recognise that we made a mistake.

Mr. Swayne: One of the problems that we examined in Committee was the fear that there would be a growing number of variations as a consequence of the simplicity of the new formula. Would not the addition of new clause 27 provide a powerful incentive for the Government to keep up the pressure by means of a performance measure?

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is half right. As he says, the new clause would provide a sensible performance measure and it would be helpful in that respect. However, as my hon. Friend said most powerfully in Committee, the demand for additional variations will not come from within the CSA or from the House; it is more likely to result from public disquiet and unhappiness. In a reasonable world, the new clause might operate as a check on the Government but, as we sought to demonstrate, it would at least provide an early warning of what might go wrong, and that is desirable.
Before my hon. Friend intervened, I was about to don a hair shirt and apologise, so I shall do so now. We made a mistake when we made changes to the CSA. Although we introduced lots of departures and variations—

depending on whether one reads the Bill or the Act—and that was sensible, we retained a fairly complex system of assessment. The Government propose a simplified, three-band system of assessment and we support that, but they also intend to reduce the number of variations. That cannot be sensible. It is a mirror image of the mistake that we made. There should be a simplified system of assessment, but a greater number of variations than the Government propose. That would temper the rough justice that the Government would otherwise impose.
I have received a transcript of a talk given by Mr. Nicholas Mostyn QC—

Kali Mountford: Not him again.

Mr. Pickles: I have no doubt that Mr. Mostyn—one of the country's leading family law Queen's counsels—will be most gratified to receive that accolade of "Not him again".

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Same old stuff.

Mr. Pickles: Mr. Mostyn's speech was given, to Manches and Co., on 7 March 2000, and is therefore quite recent. The Minister therefore cannot say that it is the same old stuff. It is new stuff, and he should pay some attention. [Interruption.] We will come to that in a few moments. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to be doing the knitting by the tumbrels. The Bill is about ensuring that there is maintenance for children, not about redistribution of wealth. I think that the Under-Secretary had better contain herself a little.
5.15 pm
Nicholas Mostyn said:
It seems to me if you are going to make the formula more simple you must make your departures wider. You can't make the formula more arbitrary and then cut down the grounds on which you seek departure.
That seems to be a very fair assessment.
Labour Members—in their "not him again" mode—will perhaps want to hear something more to their taste. In "Children First: Reforming Child Support", published in October 1996, just a few months before the Government's general election victory, they talked about
increasing the grounds on which an appeal can be made to include complaints not only against assessment itself, but against failures in the administrative process that led to it.
New clause 27 would achieve precisely that.
The new clause seeks to ensure that, if people are aggrieved, they do not have to wait a month to receive a reply. It would provide a way of ensuring that matters are dealt with. I do not know why the Minister of State should be so unhappy about that. The new clause will make the whole system run better. I do not see why the Government are getting themselves all upset about it.
When we were debating the Bill in Committee, if anything made the Government more likely to accept a proposal, it was the idea that it would improve administrative convenience. The new clause is all about administrative convenience. The new clause will implement Labour's intention, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Field: Reading new clause 27, I thought that I agreed with it. However, after listening to the speech of


the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), I am not sure that I do. However, I should like to add my weight to the Government's position—that it is crucial that we have a much more simplified formula and that we do not grant many exceptions to that simple formula. That is how our tax system runs, and it works well. There is agreement across the country on our tax system. The last thing that we want is more departures from a simplified formula. We are moving towards a formula that people understand, and part of that understanding is that there will be some rough justice.
I hope that, after we have meandered through our debate, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause—which in good nature and good faith could be considered in another place. I suggest that, if the proposal is not voted on today, but is considered in another place, we might consider creating a statutory requirement that maintenance payments should occur only after the errors have been put right. The hon. Gentleman is lucky in that he has only one person staggering in per surgery to complain. In Birkenhead, there are four of five people with shopping bags full of papers from the CSA. There may be cases where an individual has done all in his power to present the proper information, and it is found, much later, that the CSA has made a miscalculation or an error in computing maintenance, and the new maintenance bill, taking into account that error, is backdated to the period when the error was discovered and then presented to my constituent. In those circumstances, it is proper for taxpayers to meet the bill, and not individual constituents.

Mr. Andrew George: I welcome the spirit of the new clause. It is reasonable to introduce targets and appropriate compensation, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out. Clearly, his surgeries mirror my own. This is the area that has caused the most frustration and difficulty for constituents and Members of Parliament.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the time period for targets, but there is a question mark over the point at which the target period effectively kicks in; in other words, when it can be agreed that all the evidence required by the CSA has been received, as that is often a cause of debate between the CSA and the client.

Mr. Field: I was not arguing that so much. In circumstances where a constituent receives a letter stating that the CSA has discovered that, two years ago, it made a mistake in computing the maintenance, and presenting the constituent with the back payment that he owes, we want the Bill to ensure that our constituent does not pick up the bill and that the CSA does.

Mr. George: I was making a point in addition to that point, with which I entirely agree. The backdating claims, and the resulting heavy burden upon many constituents as a result of errors made by the CSA, are pertinent points. These lie alongside the arguments made effectively by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Whether the hon. Gentleman seeks to push the new clause to a vote, or seeks simply to probe the matter, he will find strong support from my party.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: When I was first elected, a great many people came to my surgeries to

complain about the CSA—not only about its mistakes, but about calculations that were not done and about cases dragging on and on. It may be dangerous to say this, but I find that there are fewer cases coming to my surgeries now.
In view of that, I hope that we are not being premature with some of the changes that we are making in the Bill, which undoubtedly creates a system of rough justice. Many changes in the Bill are to be welcomed, but we may come to regret creating such a system.

Mr. Swayne: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the targets set out in the new clause are not necessary because the administrative situation has improved so much? If that is so, is the Bill necessary at all?

Mr. Robertson: I am not quite saying that, but my hon. Friend's question leads to an interesting point. I hope that I may test your patience slightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by drawing an analogy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It occurred to me that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was directing the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) more accurately to the substance of the amendment than his own opening remarks suggested. I allowed the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman some licence to put the background to the new clause, but I cannot allow the same licence to other hon. Members.

Mr. Robertson: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your guidance, and to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest. West (Mr. Swayne). I had not appreciated how helpful he was being.

Mr. Swayne: I am here to help.

Mr. Robertson: In view of that advice, I shall turn straight to the detail of new clause 27.

Angela Eagle: Very wise.

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that it is wise to do so.
I support new clause 27, which would be very useful. It would concentrate the minds of those at the CSA charged with ensuring that money finds its way to parents with care so that children are helped, and with ensuring that people are not charged unfairly. The performance measures that the new clause could be said to be introducing would be very effective.
Target times are all well and good, but we must be aware that in some circumstances it might not be possible to meet such a target. The reasons may be outside the CSA's control—for example, it may not be possible to get the relevant information. When that happens, it would be far better to extend the time a little than to drop the case and allow the costs already incurred to fall to the taxpayer. That is not something that I support.
I am in favour of the new clause, but I think that we must keep something of an open mind about the possibility that the time limit might have to be extended sometimes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke about empowering people, and the new clause would empower people to receive what they are entitled to. In that way the taxpayer would


be relieved of the burden. The new clause would also mean that the non-resident parent—the one who does the paying—would receive the justice that he deserves.
All hon. Members know that delays cause many problems, and mean that parents with care and their children have to live without support. In the cases that I have dealt with, many problems have been caused by arrears building up, and the compensation provided for in new clause 27 might well have to be set against those arrears.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that all hon. Members appreciate his balanced presentation of the case, but does he agree that new clause 27 is desirable, on its own account and because it would establish more widely the principle that compensation should be paid in the event of malfeasance?

Mr. Robertson: I entirely agree. In many cases, compensation, had it been paid, would have relieved greatly the suffering of aggrieved parents, regardless of which side of the argument they were on.
Introducing time limits could prevent some of the problems that can be encountered. The threat of violence between the parties was mentioned earlier. I do not suggest that the new clause would remove such threats, but recognising and dealing quickly with them would lessen the risk of violence. There would also be less risk that people would disappear into the community and never having to pay a penny for their children. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that we can have a cessation of the chat lines going on between hon. Members on the Government Benches. I am trying to listen to the debate.

Mr. Robertson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that hon. Members do not find my remarks terribly interesting, but they may come to be seen as important.
A time limit would also simplify the system. If people are aware that the CSA means business and that it will sort out a case in X number of weeks, they might be more prepared to provide information, especially when they realise that compensation might be payable.
I understand what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about compensation being paid for by the taxpayer. Would the Government also consider, in certain cases, asking for compensation from a party who has withheld information? I accept that that may be going slightly wide of the new clause, but it might be a way of preventing problems from arising in the first place.

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friends have been eloquent in detailing the problems that Members of Parliament are faced with in their surgeries consequent upon the delays of the Child Support Agency. However, I think that their expectations of the impact of the new clause are rather exaggerated. In many respects, the problems are insoluble. When the CSA is confronted with those problems, it stands between two warring parties who have come to hate one another and who acknowledge no sense of

contributory negligence in having chosen one another as partners in the procreation of children. We have to escape from the notion in the new clause that there should be a measure of customer satisfaction with the Child Support Agency. In many respects, such expectations cannot be met.

Mr. Pickles: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. The new clause offers an early warning system that things are not going right at the Child Support Agency. One of the earliest signs that the agency is getting swamped and things are going wrong is the length of time that staff take to reply to letters or make assessments.

Mr. Swayne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I began my remarks by saying what I think that the new clause would not achieve, despite some people's expectations. I now wish to deal with what the new clause would achieve, which my hon. Friend has drawn to our attention. Undoubtedly, many of the problems that compound the irritation and frustration of our constituents arise purely out of an administrative rather than a social problem. Part of that has undoubtedly been the lack of resources that have been made available to the agency. The Parliamentary Commissioner drew attention to that in reports to the House.
It must be acknowledged that there has been a huge improvement in the agency's performance, measured by the number of cases that have been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner, which is sharply down, and the number of cases referred to Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, one of the principal purposes of the Bill, as we are constantly told, is to streamline the administrative process because the existing process is far too cumbersome. I see that the Minister nods her head. Given that one of the Bill's principal purposes is to achieve that administrative streamlining and, as a consequence, deliver a measure of justice that the existing system simply cannot deliver, it seems appropriate to have some means of measuring the effectiveness of that administrative improvement. The new clause provides precisely that mechanism.
It is appropriate that we should demand such provisions, because time after time in Committee, when we attempted to ameliorate what Ministers correctly referred to as some of the rough justice of the Bill, we were told that, although our amendments were desirable in themselves, they could not be accepted because they undermined the overriding requirement to deliver administrative efficiency. If the purpose of the Bill is to do that, surely the pay-off must be the provisions in new clause 27.
The Bill will, of course, deliver a much simpler system, but it will be a much rougher form of justice. As a consequence, it is proper to provide our constituents with a form of redress if the system continues to fall down and if its administrative procedures do not match up to expectations. That would provide an administrative incentive to the Department and to Ministers to ensure that the CSA is properly resourced and capable of delivering the administrative solution for which the Bill was designed.

Mr. Pickles: The logical extension of my hon. Friend's argument is a point that I did not pursue. The provision


would offer Ministers, or those in control of the CSA, a week-by-week view—an early warning that things might go wrong; they would not have to wait months to find out through an appeal. People would have begun to receive money so everyone would already know that something had gone wrong.

Mr. Swayne: That is correct. That mechanism must be built into the system because it is so manifestly lacking under the existing arrangements which the Bill attempts to remedy. In effect, the provision is a form of management information. To include that is not only correct, but would introduce an element of justice and redress that the Bill does not contain. Much of the Bill trades justice and fairness for administrative convenience—not for the benefit of the Department but for that of the taxpayer and, indeed, the customers of the CSA, for whom the present system is unfair and unjust because it is so complex.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will have observed that subsection (2) of the new clause states that the "level of compensation payable" is to be set out in regulations consequent on the clause. Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the levels—I think the plural is intended, or, if not, it would be appropriate—of compensation should be specified in the regulations, and that they should not be subject to the personal discretion or the administrative fiat of CSA staff?

Mr. Swayne: That is true. The principle of natural justice should apply to those regulations. Customers should be compensated for the tort—the wrong—that they have suffered; the compensation should right the injustice. I would expect that to be set out in the regulations. If that element of natural justice is not included, the Bill will not be compliant with the European convention on human rights. Presumably, Ministers have taken advice and reflected on that matter.

Mr. Bercow: That would never do.

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is unfair. In Committee, we covered such matters exhaustively and Ministers provided some satisfaction on them.
I share entirely the Ministers' objective, but the new clause is desirable not only on the ground of natural justice but because it would provide what I have called the pay-off for some of the compromises on fairness that we have made during proceedings on the Bill. We have sacrificed fairness for administrative streamlining, and it is therefore appropriate to insert this measure of redress.

Angela Eagle: We need to bear in mind in our deliberations the fact that the Bill will undoubtedly deliver a simpler and more effective system of child support, and because of it, more than 1 million children will gain. We are all in favour of targets. The only thing that divides the Government and the Opposition in this debate is where and how they should be set and in what context.
I thank Opposition Members who have observed that there have been some improvements in the Child Support Agency. It is true that there have been huge improvements in its attempts to deliver a very difficult administrative

system. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) mentioned the telephone answering service. I can tell the House that, in 1996, only 1 per cent. of calls were answered promptly—

Mr. Kevin Hughes: If at all.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. That figure is now up to 70 per cent. Although all hon. Members have noticed some significant improvements, we know that there is a great deal more to do. Nobody is in favour of delays and arrears. We are all too familiar from our constituency postbags with the delays and poor service that the CSA, struggling with its current formula, can provide. The child support scheme has failed parents and children alike, and that is why we are revisiting the subject to try to get it right. Clearly, given our experience, it is our duty to bear administrative simplicity in mind when redesigning the system. The radical simplification of the way in which child support liability is assessed, by replacing the complex assessment formula with a straightforward one, will help a great deal.
The new clause is unnecessary. In the reformed child support scheme, we expect the agency to make maintenance calculations within days and to get maintenance flowing in an average of four to six weeks rather than up to six months, as now. Clearly, by the time six months have elapsed, non-resident parents face difficulties having accrued arrears through no fault of their own.

Mr. Pickles: Would it be fair to say that the hon. Lady is rejecting the new clause as unnecessary because delays will not occur under the new system?

Angela Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come on to explain why the new clause is unnecessary. I am disagreeing not with the requirement for targets but with the way in which the new clause would put them into effect and with some of the perverse effects that that would have. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) pointed one out: if the agency had to ensure that all—that is the word used in the new clause—payments were made within a set time, regardless of how difficult a case might be, that might create a perverse incentive not to pursue some cases. Such cases would be bound not to fall within the target. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) mentioned some of the difficulties and sensitivities of setting targets fairly.
We are looking at a target of four to six weeks rather than six months in which to get maintenance flowing. The faster turnround of cases will get it flowing more quickly and reliably, and that is the aim underpinning the changes. The new clause would mean that the agency would be legally bound to deal with all cases referred to it in a set target time, regardless of whether the parents were co-operating, of why the delay had occurred and of the normal peaks and troughs in the number of separated parents applying for maintenance.
The Secretary of State will, as now, set the CSA a range of targets each year, including those relating to clearance times. However, it is unrealistic and inappropriate to set such targets in legislation. That is not done in any other area, and legislation is a particularly inflexible way of setting targets.
5.45 pm
If the wording of the new clause is taken literally, a target embracing the clearance of "all" cases would have to be set at the level of the most difficult case if it were to be remotely realistic. A more demanding target would lead the agency to devote a disproportionate level of its resources to clearing such cases, substantially worsening the position for those who would otherwise expect quick and effective decisions. That would be counterproductive.
The chief executive of the CSA is rightly accountable to Parliament for the performance of her agency and details of its performance against each of its targets are published in its annual report. The performance of the agency is also subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Social Security. Requiring the CSA to meet what might be inflexible clearance-time targets that were set in isolation from other targets, such as those relating to accuracy, would simply not be sensible.
The new clause would also require the agency to pay compensation to parents where the agency failed to meet its statutory clearance targets regardless of the cause of the delay. As hon. Members will be aware, the Department of Social Security, in common with other Departments, has a discretionary compensation scheme, which provides financial redress to anyone who has suffered financial loss, harm or suffering as a result of poor administration.

Mr. Pickles: I think that the Minister has misread the terms of the new clause. It says:
The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.
That means all the various categories. The Secretary of State will set the targets for the various categories and it is a perverse reading of the true meaning of the new clause to suggest that a target must be set for every single case. The new clause would mean that targets would be set for the various categories. If that is what it means, all the Minister's objections to it will be swept aside.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman did not deal in detail with that aspect of the new clause when he moved it. However, it refers to "all cases". There is no distance between us on the need for the CSA to have targets. Those targets should be published and should be made available. The CSA should then prove to the rest of us—its accountability is well set out—that it is capable of meeting those targets. I do not think that the new clause would assist that process, and we do not want the targets to be set in legislation. They are normally set by a Secretary of State and reported on in annual reports, but they certainly do not appear in secondary legislation. If they did, that would make them inflexible.
Compensation is already paid and, last year, it amounted to more than £4.5 million. There is nothing between us on the setting of targets and I am not saying that we will not set very rigorous targets for the CSA. However, we do not want to set them in legislation; we want them to be set in the normal way. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the CSA will be accountable.

Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful to the Minister. She says that there is consensus on the setting of targets, and she is absolutely right about that. Everyone agrees that the targets should be reasonable. We do not want to place the CSA and even Ministers in a difficult position. We argue that realistic targets should be set.
There is, however, a difference of opinion between us. She says that if targets are not met for individuals, nothing will happen. We argue that people should be entitled to compensation, but when I said that nothing would happen, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) shook his head. I am not sure what would happen. Perhaps a report would be written, perhaps the CSA would have to appear before a Select Committee and receive a grilling or perhaps it would be the subject of an audit from the Public Accounts Committee. However, such processes are meaningless to ordinary members of the public, because they are blissfully unaware of them.
We have debated this issue before and we must remember that the individuals involved are ordinary folk who want to achieve justice from the system. They are not concerned whether an official whom they consider to be highly paid appears before a Select Committee and receives a bit of a grilling from even more highly paid politicians. They are thinking, "I've been waiting a month and nothing has happened. Why not? I haven't received any compensation or an apology. I've received nothing."

Mr. Swayne: The Minister, in putting her case, set out what targets she will seek to achieve for the length of time taken to process an application. Does my hon. Friend consider those targets reasonable, as the Minister does, or does he have alternatives?

Mr. Pickles: Well, we do not know what targets the Minister will set. We have had a vague promise that targets will be set.

Angela Eagle: We shall publish the targets. Clearly, they will not be a state secret. Targets for the CSA and all agencies within the Department of Social Security are published, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the process will be open.

Mr. Pickles: I am sure that receiving the targets will not be a case of meeting at the crossroads at midnight. I am sure that they will be published.

Mr. Swayne: Given that the targets will be published and that the Minister complained that it would be inappropriate to set targets in the Bill, there can be no objection to the new clause because it does not require targets to be included in the Bill. It merely requires the Secretary of State to set targets.

Angela Eagle: In regulations.

Mr. Swayne: Indeed, in regulations. Given that the Minister will set such targets—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make an intervention on his hon. Friend, he needs to disguise it better than that.

Mr. Pickles: In so far as I understand my hon. Friend's point, I agree with him. The Minister was told by those


briefing her on the new clause, "This will be a piece of cake because the Tories have tied themselves in knots. We do not want to set the targets in legislation because that is wholly unreasonable. Look, they're using the word 'all', so you'll have no problem dismissing the new clause." Of course, problems have started to occur. We have had distinguished contributions from the Liberal Democrats and, of course, my hon. Friends, saying that the new clause is sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is absolutely square on.
We must look at the new clause. It is nice to debate legislation in this place but it is better to look at what we are debating. The new clause says:
The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which—

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has already read out the new clause.

Mr. Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but it is clear that he was not listening, so I shall continue. The new clause says:
The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.
We want the Secretary of State to do precisely that.
That does not mean to say that every case would have the same target. I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary thought that every CSA case would have an identical target. That is certainly not what she just said. She started to take hon. Members into her confidence and said that the targets will be published and the process will be open.
The new clause seeks only to ensure that the targets set by the Secretary of State will have a consequence. Subsection (2) would empower the Secretary of State to set the level of compensation to be paid if those targets were not met. That is necessary for two reasons. First, as I have already said, we want to ensure that the people waiting on the telephone and sending letters do not think that their words have gone into a great black hole.

Mr. Swayne: I fear that in his attempt to be reasonable and to persuade the Government to adopt the new clause, my hon. Friend is handing rather too much power to Ministers because the regulations, compensation and targets will be entirely at their discretion. Could he assist the House by indicating what would be reasonable compensation and what would be a reasonable target?

Mr. Pickles: I have no idea whether my hon. Friend is a fly fisherman or whether you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when one casts the lure on the water, it is important that it is attractive enough to make the Government snap. My hon. Friend must recognise from his time in the House—which is daily becoming more distinguished—that the Government resist including precise figures in primary legislation because they want more power.
To tempt the Government to accept the new clause, I am offering them considerable power. That is a straightforward strategy. I may be criticised for making it easy on the Government and for making the system work,

but we decided that from day 1 we would deal with the Government on the basis of trying to improve the Bill, and that is why the new clause has been made so tempting.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that on the subject of compensation payments the Minister gave us a passable imitation of Dr. Pangloss in suggesting that the present arrangements are entirely satisfactory? Does he recall that she referred to the overall sum available for compensation? Does he think that it is more important to establish that the individual amounts payable in given circumstances are appropriate than to brag holistically about the overall level, because that gives the impression that, Scrooge-like, she is concerned with the totality rather than the cause of individual justice?

Mr. Pickles: I understand my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Minister said that the new clause is not entirely alien to the Government's measures; a compensation scheme exists and the new clause is perhaps a natural add-on to that scheme. In a way the Minister is arguing against herself by not accepting the new clause.
As I said, the first reason why subsection (2) is necessary is to ensure that the public understand that a compensation scheme exists. The second reason relates to administrative convenience. The new clause would enable us to find out pretty soon if things are going wrong. We could find out in various ways. We could set up a complex system, perhaps involving computer software and outside consultants who could monitor customer satisfaction, conduct opinion polls and set up a focus group of people who had dealt with the CSA.
I suspect that all those methods would be very effective, but subsection (2) offers a cheap and cheerful alternative. Compensation will be paid on the basis of a failure to comply with pre-set Government targets, so we would find out instantly if things went wrong. Sensible CSA managers would be monitoring the effect of the new clause almost weekly. I imagine that they might well have a graph in their office showing the amount of compensation being paid. If they suddenly found that the curve was starting to change and the graph was becoming almost vertical, they would ask themselves what was happening. That would tell us that something has gone wrong in the system; it would give us an early warning—

6 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I give the hon. Gentleman an early warning? I feel that he is beginning to repeat himself.

Mr. Pickles: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am sure that you realise, I am genuinely attempting to improve the Bill and I have now made my second point.
The Government suggest that the new clause, if it is interpreted in a certain way, might have a perverse effect, because of the words "all cases". I recall the Under-Secretary saying that there might be a possibility of officials deciding not to pursue certain cases because they would take too long. The hon. Lady understands that we interpret the words "all cases" differently, but—[Interruption.] The Minister of State appears to want me to go on even longer, even though I have already received a warning from the Deputy Speaker. I was about to become accommodating, so the right hon. Gentleman should not provoke me.
Because of the Under-Secretary's comments and because our proposal appears to have attracted cross-party support, I am hopeful that she will have a little think about it.

Mr. Bercow: Is not the problem with compensation that the process of pursuing it is often difficult, lengthy and uncertain, notwithstanding the Under-Secretary's comments about the overall compensation payable? Therefore, is not the merit of the specificity of the new clause that it will give CSA staff an incentive to good performance that the Bill does not provide?

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has it slightly wrong: £4.5 million is not the amount of compensation that is available, sitting in a pot, waiting to be claimed, but is the amount of compensation that was paid out last year.

Mr. Pickles: I think that we understood that.
Because the use of the phrase "all cases" might result in the new clause having a perverse effect, because there is a high degree of consensus on the clause, and because I suspect that the matter will be pursued in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdraw.

Schedule 1

SUBSTITUTED PART I OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ACT 1991

Mr. Pickles: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 83, line 7, at beginning insert—
'( ) Where the amount of child support maintenance calculated exceeds such sum as may be prescribed ('the maximum sum'), the maximum sum shall be payable by the non-resident parent.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in page 83, line 7, at beginning insert—
' "( )(a) Following the calculation of the amount payable by the non-resident parent the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent with care in like manner to the determination of the net weekly income of the non-resident parent.
(b) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent of the Secretary of State shall in such manner as may be prescribed reduce the amount of child support maintenance payable by the non-resident parent.
(c) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of (a) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by (b) shall apply to the amounts payable to each of those parents with care in receipt of a net weekly income greater than that of the non-resident parent.".'.
No. 2, in page 83, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph 4(1) and insert—
'4.—(1) Except in a case falling within sub-paragraph (2), a flat rate of £5 is payable if the nil rate does not apply and the non-resident parent's net weekly income is £100 or less.'.
No. 3, in page 84, line 2, leave out from "force;" to end of line 4.
No. 4, in page 84, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph 4(3)
No. 5, in page 84, line 11, at end insert—
'; or

(c) he received any benefit, pension or allowance prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; or
(d) The or his partner (if any) receives any benefit prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) The benefits, pensions and allowances which may be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 5(1)(d) include ones paid to the non-resident parent under the law of a place outside the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Pickles: The amendments address matters of great importance. On Second Reading, we made it clear that, although we support the notion of simplified banding, we believe that the Bill makes certain injustices likely.
Three great injustices have not been addressed. The first is the issue of rough justice and the lack of variations, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, kindly allowed us to debate briefly in connection with new clause 27. The other two relate precisely to the amendments, especially the first two in the group. They are the injustice of not having an upper limit for the purposes of assessment and the injustice that arises when the parent with care is wealthy and the non-resident parent is poor.
The Bill is a landmark measure because it creates a new right in law: that a child shall have a share of the parent's income during the lifetime of the parent. That legal right is unique, not only in British law, but anywhere else in the world, according to the advice that I have received from learned colleagues and counsel.

Mr. Swayne: Although the right might well be unique, it does not strike me as unreasonable. My hon. Friend appears to dispute the right. Will he explain why he considers it unacceptable?

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend must be patient: I was about to explain, but he will have to allow me a few oratorical flourishes before reaching that climax.
I understand that a similar right exists in Germany, but only in connection with inheritance—in other words, the parent has to be dead. Britain is the only place in the world that will give that right when the person who has the money is still living. The strange aspect is that the right is given only to children of a broken marriage or relationship; in addition, the right affects only the non-resident parent's wealth. Therefore, children do not have such a right in relation to the parent with care or if their parents live together. A child of a broken marriage has no such right in connection with the parent with care, who might be wealthy, but has it in connection with the non-resident parent, who might be poor.
Under the Bill, the child has no right to claim the money itself. Therefore, although we create a brand-new right in law that one child is entitled to 15 per cent., two children to 22 per cent., and three or more children to 25 per cent. of the non-resident parent's income, the children cannot get hold of the money themselves; it is paid over to the parent with care. No wonder the arrangement has been described as spousal redistribution by stealth. It is a way of re-examining a divorce settlement.
I know that you like transparency in such matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is strange that the Government are reluctant to give a reason for the arrangement. All we hear


is a woolly statement that children have a right to enjoy and share in any increase in the wealth of the non-resident parent. That is all the explanation that has been given, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will provide some further explanation today.
I do not believe that a child has such a right. I believe that children have a more important right, which is to be maintained by each parent. Children have a right to maintenance and to their education, housing and other needs being met, but they do not have a right to an immediate share in their parents' wealth. There might be a presumption or an expectation that, as time passes, certain sums will be handed over to a child during its lifetime, or that it will receive some sort of inheritance after a parent's death, but the child has no right to receive such sums. The House should not be involved in carving up a person's wealth. That should be a matter for the individual parties to decide. Individuals have a right, a duty and an obligation to look after and support their children. They cannot palm their children off on to somebody else. That is the position in law.
We have been considerably helped, during the Bill's passage through the House, by the work of the Select Committee on Social Security. I shall quote from its recommendations, which I think are set out on pages xlii and xliii. The Committee states:
In the final analysis, the child support formula should be seen clearly to be related to the cost of bringing up children and not as a straightforward "tax" levied on the non-resident parent. We recommend that the Government should re-examine the possibility of inserting in the legislation an upper limit on the automatic application of the revised CSA formula.
That was wise advice. The wording was chosen because it reflected the evidence as it unfolded.
Select Committees sometimes fall down when the dirty hand of politics becomes involved, and that happened in this instance. There was an amendment to strike out the recommendation to which I have referred and instead to include the words
continue to share in that parental wealth.
However, the Committee still felt able to include the warning that
there is a risk that a few high-profile cases involving payments about the maximum contribution may negatively affect public perception.
I bet they will. The social security system and the CSA will be brought into disrepute.
I am sure that Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft leads a blameless life and that he would never shirk his responsibilities. However, let us suppose that he did, and that the CSA came after him. Mr. Gates is worth £53 billion a year. According to the formula that the Government seek to impose, if he had two children they would receive £10.6 billion by way of child maintenance. The House will be aware that the gross national product of Luxembourg is £8.9 billion. That is an illustration that the formula goes beyond maintenance and that it does not make sense.
I have used Mr. Bill Gates as an example because he is the wealthiest person whom I have heard of, and to ridicule the system. However, the Government's formula will have a more perverse effect. Another example is that of two houses side by side. In house A we have a parent with care on £9,000 and a non-resident parent on

£300,000. In house B there is a parent with care on £300,000 and a non-resident parent on £9,000. I have simply reversed the figures. Let us suppose that each house has one child. On the basis of 15 per cent., child A would receive about £45,000 a year in maintenance, and child B would receive £1,350. That is a difference of £43,650.
What sense is there in that? Are the Government suggesting that child B on £1,350 is adequately cared for? Presumably they are. Are they suggesting that child A on £45,000 is adequately compensated? Presumably they are. However, each child is identical, which is why the figures are so perverse.
6.15 pm
If there is no upper limit, the CSA will find itself increasingly taking over court order assessments. The Law Society and leading lawyers are warning us about that. [Interruption.] The Minister makes disparaging remarks about the legal profession, but it was not so long ago that it was suggested that the CSA should set up a counselling service under a leading judge to produce a far more judicial system. After all, the Minister is seeking to achieve a lawyer's playground. A great deal of money will be made, and we can be pretty sure that that will not be for the benefit of children.
As the Law Society and leading counsel have said, all that is required is 14 months' notice to be given by the parent with care, who can then take up to 25 per cent. of the non-resident parent's income. Even if there is a clean-break divorce, even if substantial child maintenance has been agreed, even if there have been deals with regard to the transfer of shares, pension rights, properties, the setting up of various trusts and various assets from the marriage being transferred, these events would be regarded as never having happened. It would be within the ability of the parent with care to go straight to the courts.
I know that Labour Members are reluctant to accept quotes from Mr. Mostyn. However, in his talk, to which I referred earlier, he made an interesting observation about the legal profession and about how judges would deal with these matters. He referred to substantial maintenance and said:
I think you are beginning to see—
He was addressing a bunch of lawyers—
how this is going to be a lawyer's beanfeast for us because we are going to be very clever working out ways to get round this and I will explain some of them later on. A certain High Court Judge has said to me that if that happens—
that is, if the proposed arrangements are made and are overturned by the CSA—
I'm going to order spousal maintenance from the wife back to the husband to rectify the situation", but that won't work when they are unmarried.
In other words, this is about spousal maintenance. It is a back-door means of achieving precisely that. I believe that the Government's approach was regarded as being rather politically correct, it being about the rights of the child. It was armchair political correctness. It was included to make everyone feel good—"We shall do this and the added bonus is that we might be able to stick a few rich people as a bonus." However, the scheme will have an effect further down the process.
In Committee, the Minister said that, if we had an upper limit—I am speaking from memory, but I am pretty sure that the hon. Lady said this—we might be vulnerable to a


challenge by the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Lady is silent. I wish that she would give me a clue whether she said that or not.

Mr. George Stevenson: We are waiting to be convinced by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is good to see him in the Chamber.
I am pretty sure that the record will confirm what I believe the Minister said. However, an upper limit already exists. Is she suggesting that we are open to challenge? As leading counsel has said, we need to see that advice, because it goes against all the experts in family law. All the experts on the European convention on human rights say that that is not the case, but the hon. Lady seems to have found a lawyer to say that it is. If it flies in the face of conventional wisdom and all the advice that we have received, we should know. I look forward to hearing from her what the position is.
We are not unique in having such a system. The system in Australia has the same aim. In Committee, I quoted extensively from Mr. Justice Kay of the Australian court. I did not realise at the time how distinguished he was. Apparently, he is the senior judge in the family court of Australia, and the principal appellant judge after the chief justice, so he is a senior man.
Justice Kay was asked to give advice to the Select Committee, and stated:
Placing a cap on administrative assessment of child support and factoring in some income of the carer are seen as being entirely consistent with two underlying essential bases of the scheme.
The first principle is
that children have their proper needs met from reasonable and adequate shares in the income, earning, property and financial resources of both of their parents.
The second is
that parents share equitably in the support of their children.
Justice Kay was asked whether those principles would meet with public acceptance. He commented:
The success of the scheme may well depend on the extent to which the public perceive it to be fair. Assessments which throw up $550—
the sums are given in Australian dollars—
a week for a baby or ignore the fact that the carer is earning $100,000 per annum whilst the payer is struggling to make ends meet do little to bolster public enthusiasm for the scheme.
The Government's proposal is entirely consistent with the Labour party's pre-election pledge, which stated:
We are determined to establish clear principles, in the context of changing times, and to devise policies that are as fair as possible for all the parties concerned, including mothers and fathers.
I anticipate what the Minister will say. She will speak about rough justice and tell us not to worry, because the system is to be simplified. She will say that some people may be disadvantaged, but too bad. She will tell us that 96 per cent. of parents with care have net weekly incomes below £100, and that only 6,000 people will be affected.
In my book, 6,000 is a substantial number, and that does not take account of the effect on middle England. Once the measure becomes law, there will be a rush—nay, a stampede—of people seeking to overturn court judgments and to get a larger slice by way of spousal distribution.
Is it not absurd that we may be chasing a non-resident parent with a low income—as low, say, as £9,000 a year—when the parent with care is wealthy? Is it not absurd that we are giving children a right to a share of the income of one set of two parents? The amendments are intended to make sense of the CSA reforms.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Where the non-resident parent has formed another relationship and the other partner to that relationship is making provision, should that not be taken into consideration?

Mr. Pickles: Not in the context of the amendment, which deals with parents with care who are wealthy. It is ridiculous to suggest that the income of the parent with care should not be taken into consideration. It makes a mockery of the system to chase after someone for a relatively small sum, when the child is living with a parent who has considerable wealth.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an accurate summary of his position to say that he was arguing on the strength of the principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is probably a keen fly-fisherman. I shall take no more interventions, as I want to make progress.
We should stop making the CSA a laughing stock. Without the amendments, we will create injustice and a new concept in law which has not been thought out. We will undermine the successful introduction of a set of measures which we sincerely hope will succeed. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Field: I shall speak to amendment No. 87. I confess that, so far, Bill Gates has not come to my surgery to discuss the sort of issues raised in the debate. [Interruption.] Of course, I live in hope.
I shall describe a real-life situation for some, but not many, constituents. I pose this as a question to the Minister, which she may answer now or in a letter later, about how the new Act will operate and the safeguards that it will contain.
As I understand it, the safeguard is that people will be required to pay only a certain proportion of their income in maintenance. I have had a number of constituency cases in which people had their first child when they were, let us say, 16. They have a court order for the payment of maintenance for that child. They have then married and had a second family. That marriage has broken up. It is on that second family that the CSA calculations will be undertaken.
I seek an assurance that, under the new system, the maintenance paid for the first child will be taken into account when the proportion of income taken in maintenance is levied—in other words, that that maintenance payment will be taken into account when the safeguard which I understand is in the Bill comes into operation. That is the opposite extreme of how a cap operates, but more people in Britain may be interested in the answer to that question than in the answer to the question of how to treat those families who are lucky enough to have an annual income greater than some continental European countries.

Mr. Webb: Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 raise two interesting issues. Amendment No. 87 provides that the absent parent, no matter how rich, continues to pay a percentage in child maintenance. Amendment No. 88—to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred, but not in as much detail as I expected—deals with the situation where the mother is better off than the absent father.
In considering the amendments, we were struck by the fact that they represent opposite logics. Our guiding principle in deciding which way to vote on an amendment is whether it would help to maintain what a child would have experienced had the parents stayed together. That seemed a reasonable way to evaluate the amendments. On amendment No. 87, the answer is no, and on amendment No. 88, yes. Let me explain what I mean.
Had the rich dad—for simplicity's sake—stayed with the family, the child would have benefited. Maintenance is not just about food and clothing; it is about living standards and quality of life. If a child loses the presence of the dad, is it reasonable to expect them to lose the living standard provided by a well-off dad, or a dad who becomes well off? Had the dad remained and earned a bonus or a good salary, the family might have gone to Disneyland, or wherever.

Mr. Pickles: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Bill provides no way of ensuring that such money is transferred to the child?

Mr. Webb: Short of putting the money in trust, which would be a possibility, we have to assume that the parents will want to act in the child's best interest, so I have no particular problem with the lack of a mechanism for benefiting the child.
Different issues arise if the dad becomes rich after the break up, but if he was rich while the family were together, the child will have had a high material standard of living. Therefore, after a break up, not only does the child lose the dad but there is a slump in the standard of living, which is something else to adjust to.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right to question whether a child who loses a father also loses a certain standard of living, but the father loses the child, so should there not be some recognition of that?

Mr. Webb: Obviously, the father does lose the child. We all encounter fathers in our surgeries who feel that pain greatly and have great concerns about access and other issues, but I am not convinced that a monetary adjustment is the right way to deal with that problem. Court decisions on welfare and access are important in that regard, but I am not convinced that tweaking the formula can compensate. I do not suggest that we compensate the child for the loss of the father through money either; I am simply trying to avoid further pain for the child.
Therefore, I am not convinced that a cap would make sense. There may be a few headline cases, although, as has been suggested, the Bill Gates of this world will have

good lawyers and, just as they will probably avoid paying much tax, they will probably find a way round provisions such as this, so they may never be affected.
We have more sympathy with the rich mum, poor dad situation, where there is more obviously a potential sense of injustice when a dad with a modest income pays maintenance when the mother is well able to provide the child with all that it needs. The loss of money from the dad leaving may be small and there will be one less mouth to feed. I am aware that research shows that, after a split, the family with the children is usually the worst off, but we are dealing here with the opposite case, where the mother is relatively well off, where, after the split, there is one less mouth to feed and the loss of only a modest income, so the family may be better off. It is not unreasonable that that may be taken into account in the maintenance assessment. Therefore, we have some sympathy with amendment No. 88 but not with amendment No. 87.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, relate to one issue and touch on the different set of circumstances of the absent parent, typically the dad, who is on benefits. Schedule 1 says that dads on benefit would probably pay a fiver, which they would not presently be paying. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will stop me, otherwise I shall assume that that is the case.
Is it right to take that fiver a week from an absent parent on benefits? The Government's approach is to say that pretty well everyone should pay something, as much for the symbolism of it as anything else. It is a point of principle, but my problem is that the Government, in so many things that they do, cause people to live below the poverty line by digging away at their basic benefit level.
I would argue that the £50 a week received on income-based jobseeker's allowance is an extraordinarily minimal sum on which to live. It is certainly not enough to save with, so lump sum purchases require a social fund loan, or something like that. A fiver may not sound much to us, but it could be 10 per cent. of a weekly income. I am not convinced that the symbolism of saying that everyone must pay something justifies the poverty that will be created for absent parents in such a situation.
The effect of amendment Nos. 2 to 5, on which we shall divide the House because they represent an important and distinct issue, is to move absent parents on benefit from the category of those who have to pay a fiver into the category of those who are subject to the nil rate.
I give the House an illustration of why we are particularly concerned about deductions from benefits. The "Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1999"—perhaps not the latest, but the latest that I have to hand—gives the number of people on benefits who already have something deducted at source. In other words, they are already getting by on a weekly income below basic benefit levels.
The astonishing figure here is that more than 1 million income support claimants are already living below basic income support levels because something has been taken away at source. Various categories of money are taken away at source, some of which tell one something about the standard of living. For example, in some cases mortgage interest comes from income support at source, and that is just an accounting feature. The money goes direct to the lender instead of it going to the claimant and


the claimant paying it out, so that does not directly mean that they are living below the poverty line. About 600,000 people on income support have social fund loan repayments deducted from their basic benefits. One might say that they have had the money with which they bought the bed, cooker, fridge or whatever, but that money has gone on those purchases, so it is not then available for buying food, clothing and basic necessities. The basic income support level is minimal enough as it is, with no slack in it, so many people on income support end up going to money lenders and loan sharks. Pushing them further below income support by schedule 1 is a cause for concern.
Categories are always being added to such deductions, which take people below the income support line, and the social fund line in the table has been shooting up. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor told the House that there has been year after year of continuous economic growth. One would therefore assume that the numbers would start to drop as jobs were created. Unemployment decreased substantially over that period.
Yet, according to the table, in the past four years, the number of people who live below the poverty line because of social fund loan repayments has increased from approximately 450,000 to 600,000. The number has increased in each of the past four years. There is an underlying serious problem: more and more of our fellow citizens live below the poverty line because of deductions from benefit. Without our amendments, schedule 1 will exacerbate the problem. That is the kernel of our argument.
We have reached a position in which people cannot get social fund loans because they are deemed too poor to repay them. That is extraordinary, yet the system works in that way. People are becoming deeply indebted to the social fund and to loan sharks, yet we are considering a schedule that will deduct another fiver. I accept that not many of the dads whom we are considering are in those categories. However, many are lone parents who are repaying social fund loans, and some are pensioners or disabled. Some dads will be on incapacity benefit and repaying social fund loans.
I hope that the Minister will explain how those people are supposed to live. I presume that the fiver a week will be paid indefinitely. The problem with inadequate benefits is not living on them for a week. Members of Parliament often do a stunt and live on benefit for a week. Lo and behold, they can do it for that time. The problems arise when, for example, a consumer durable has to be replaced. The deduction of a fiver a week will make matters even worse.
I hope that the Minister can clarify a further point. When an absent parent has a child in a new benefit unit, will the deduction of a fiver continue? The Government talk about eliminating child poverty completely in 20 years. They envisage a time when the Secretary of State for Social Security will say that no child in this country lives in poverty. Yet children who are in benefit units and live below income support levels because of deductions for social fund loans or child support maintenance premiums will suffer. Even a fiver means that those children will live in poverty.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the £5 deduction and answer the specific question of whether the Government intend to take £5 from absent parents with dependant children.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I have listened to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and as always he presents a good and cogent argument. I do not agree with him although I accept his point that we are considering many fathers who are on income support and for whom £5, although it seems a small amount of money to care for a child, may be a severe imposition. I understand those points.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises the counter argument. We are using the Bill to try to create a society in which people get the message that they have rights and responsibilities. If one fathers a child, surely it is not too much to ask for £5 a week, whatever one's circumstances? I support the Government on that point, whatever the difficulties that may accrue from it.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "father a child". Let us consider the following sequence of events: a happily married couple have a child and they split up, with no blame attached—or perhaps with no blame attached to the absent parent, who is unemployed through no fault of his own and has to live on £50 a week. Is it right that he should pay 10 per cent. of his income, which he cannot afford, because he needs that money on which to live? In those circumstances, the father has done nothing wrong.

Mr. Leigh: I make it clear that I do not want to be involved in a blame game, in which we assume that the father is always in the wrong. In many circumstances, the father is not to blame. I cannot give a definite answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. It may not be entirely right to make a father in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described pay £5 a week. However, we cannot make provisions that are always right; we simply have to make a stab at a problem. The Government are trying to send a message that even though the father is not to blame for the family splitting up, and his income has fallen below a low level, he should pay something.
If the parent pays nothing, not even £5 a week, it is difficult to maintain real control of what is happening. At least a parent who pays £5 a week is involved in the family finances of the absent child. It could therefore be in the father's interest to pay that sum. However severe a financial penalty it may be in the short term, in the long run, the father's continuing involvement in the child's financial maintenance may be best for child and father.
The debate is interesting, because on the one hand I have been having one sort of argument with the hon. Member for Northavon for the past four minutes, and on the other, we have talked about Bill Gates. The debate is about the child's rights to a share of his parent's income and whether that should be calculated on a percentage basis or whether there should be a cap.
The debate on the cap is interesting because I suspect that the Government were genuinely divided about whether to provide for it. Baroness Hollis's reply to me in the Select Committee on Social Security has already been mentioned. She was obviously debating with herself as a Minister about whether there should be a cap. She said:


I think this is a question on which we thought long and hard and I think there are good, strong arguments on both sides. There is one argument saying that you should cap it because it is child maintenance and if it goes all the way up the income scale, it becomes spousal maintenance …
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made that point. The Minister is aware of it, and I hope that she will share her thoughts with us.
It would be dangerous if the payment were regarded as spousal maintenance. Absurd circumstances could arise. We have considered the Bill Gates position, in which someone of considerable resources hands over enormous sums of money. Let us consider the circumstances of two families that split up: in one case, there are children; in the other, there are no children, and there is a grotesque difference in the amount of spousal maintenance. If the proposal is accepted and there is no cap, the husband in the first case will pay 15 per cent. of his income, whatever it is. In the second, normal divorce law and procedures of the courts apply. There is no rule that provides that if there are no children, one of the partners is entitled to 15 per cent. of the other's wages. Extraordinary discrepancies could arise. We are getting into a muddle.
Although I appreciate the debate within government, Ministers should consider carefully before they reject the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar presented. I do not want to give the impression that Baroness Hollis simply agreed with me. However, she continued with the argument that she had with herself by saying:
and the other argument is that if that family were intact, the child would enjoy the living standard of that father whatever his income, whether he was earning £200 a week or £2,000 a week, and at the end of the day in response after listening to the consultation exercise and talking with people and meeting the 40 groups and organisations, we came out on the side of saying that we should not have a cap, but obviously it is the sort of issue that Parliament will want to explore and take a view on.
That is precisely what we are doing, and what we tried to do in the Select Committee and in the Standing Committee.
The problem revolves around the issue of whether the child has the right to his father's income. However, in a way Baroness Hollis was wrong when she said
if that family were intact, the child would enjoy the living standard of that father whatever his income …
As we all know—indeed, there is hardly any need to say it—there is no right to any percentage or share of the father's income, which can go up or down, if the family is intact. It is not necessarily shared with the child, and I am not sure that it is right that children should always enjoy a share of a parent's income if the family remains intact. It would be a strange legal system if that happened.
Families Need Fathers put the case well in its evidence to us, which is on page 135 of the Select Committee report:
Why should the state determine how much fathers should pay for their non-resident child when it does not involve the taxpayer? It would be considered an intolerable assault on personal liberty if it happened in a couple family.
That is a powerful argument.
In a way, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar did us a disservice by mentioning Bill Gates as his story, although good and amusing, gave the

impression that few people will be affected by the proposal. However, quite a few people who in no sense rely on state benefits and pursue normal lives could be affected, because they have suffered the misfortune of a marriage or relationship break-up. Now the state comes in, uniquely in this area, to say, "We must determine how much fathers should pay their non-resident child."

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right to castigate me. I used the Bill Gates story to illustrate a point and make the proposal look ridiculous, but it will bite significantly at about £45,000 a year and people on moderate to medium earnings will be affected.

Mr. Leigh: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has intervened, because we are beginning to have a real debate. Incomes of £40,000 or £45,000 are middle management incomes in many areas. [Interruption.] Needless to say, Members of Parliament earn such a sum. Large numbers of people will be affected. The public have not cottoned on, but there will be a great deal of resentment if people suddenly find that, irrespective of what happened in their marriage or irrespective of a former partner's position, they have to hand over £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000, which they might consider a very large sum, to maintain a child. They will think that the money will not all go to the child—there is a limit—and they would be right.
If people send their children to expensive public schools and give them everything they want, which may not be good for them anyway, perhaps they can spend £15,000, £20,000 or £25,000 a year on a child. However, many people will think that the money will not go to the child, but will simply reinforce the life style of the former spouse. Of course the money will not go to the child; nor will it be put in trust. If it were, that might be fairer. There will be enormous resentment. As Families Need Fathers said in evidence, people consider the proposal a grotesque intrusion on personal liberty and it would never be tolerated if a couple were still together. The evidence was moderately put and sensible.
I hope that hon. Members will not groan if I mention Mr. Mostyn, although they often do so when we pray him in aid of our arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Him again."] He practices in the divorce courts and we might think that he knows what he is talking about. He does not practice in cases such as those to which the hon. Member for Northavon referred and he did not talk about people on lower incomes, but he did mention parents earning £40,000, £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 a year. There are a lot of them around. They may be a minority and they may not be the Government's first concern, but the fact that they are a minority and the fact that there are far fewer of them than people in the lower income brackets does not mean that they do not have rights. They, too, have rights. They have the right to talk about their problems and to speak up about them.
On page 83 of the evidence, Mr. Nicholas Mostyn told us:
In terms of English law and social experience it would be a change of massive social profundity. It will go beyond, for example, the Roman law idea of legitim, which is your guaranteed right of inheritance. It will go beyond that because it would be inter vivos It seems to me that you have got to understand the profundity of what you are suggesting.
Perhaps he overstated his case, but not in this sense: the proposal represents an enormous change in respect of anything that we have instituted previously. Before we


finish the debate, we must be clear about what we are putting on the statute book. We are saying that, leaving aside inheritance, children in certain circumstances will have an absolute right under statute law to a proportion of a parent's income.
That is an interesting departure and we know precisely what will happen. The proposal does not concern only CSA cases because the courts will follow the CSA—there can be no doubt about that—and very soon people will wake up to what is happening under the Bill. They will immediately try to reopen settlements. People who received a court settlement of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, supposedly for a child, after their relationship broke down will rush to the court straight away when they realise that their former spouse earns £100,000 or £150,000 a year and that they can get a 15 per cent. share of that. That will happen, and it will be impossible for the courts to resist. A lot of cases will be reopened.
On a philosophical rather than a practical point, does the House of Commons want to create an absurd situation in which children will think that they have a statutory right to a certain proportion of a parent's income? Conceivably, that could lead to absurd cases in which children sue their parents for that share. We are creating a politically correct notion that most of us in the Chamber would regard as absurd, but the Government will defend themselves by saying, "That is not what we propose. We are not trying to create a new situation in which children have that right." Very reasonably, they say that children will still have a right to share in the income of an absent parent when the parents' relationship breaks down. Everybody thinks, "Oh, that is very sensible," but when we dig down and consider the proposal in more detail we see that it will produce the absurd situations that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar described.
I hope that the Government will not think that our arguments are partisan or motivated by party politics. They are perfectly sensible and reasonable points and, as the Bill continues its passage, I hope that they will come to consider some sort of cap sensible and necessary.

7 pm

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) seem to be most put out by the creation of the new right to a proportion of a parent's income. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is more excised over the creation of that right in itself—I am not disposed to the creation of new rights in respect of the rights of the child, that whole area of political correctness, but we must meet people's legitimate expectations—or over the fact that it is available only to those children whose families are no longer intact. That does not strike me as such a reprehensible state of affairs. Children have a legitimate expectation of a childhood of a certain standard, and of parenthood during that childhood. That legitimate expectation has been denied, and I do not think it entirely inappropriate for compensation to be provided in the form of a new right—the right to a proportion of one parent's income in lieu of the legitimate expectation that has been denied.
Before my hon. Friend begins to fear that I shall enter the other Lobby, let me say that I thought he was on stronger ground when he said that there was no

mechanism for the delivery of payment to the child. That, I think, is the nub of the problem, and the strength of the amendments. There is a view, or a perception, on the part of those making the payments that they will be subsidising the living standards of the parent with care. That has created a burning sense of grievance, which is compounded when the income of the parent with care is higher than that of the non-resident parent.
I believe that the feeling of injustice created by the forces to which I have referred will lead to a reduction in compliance, which, after all, is one of the great targets of the Bill. For that reason alone, I support the amendment.

Angela Eagle: We have rehearsed many of the arguments that were presented at length in Committee, but Bill Gates has now been prayed in aid. I assume that the £53 billion assessment made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) related to Bill Gates's entire wealth, rather than his annual income. We must remember that the child support mechanism deals with net taxable income, rather than the wealth that could be deemed to have accrued over an individual's lifetime.

Mr. Pickles: At £53 billion, who cares?

Angela Eagle: That is probably fair comment, but I thought I should point out that we are discussing net taxable income rather than the amount that a person is worth overall.
We should also bear in mind that there is a cap, in that a non-resident parent will in no circumstances have to contribute more than 25 per cent. of his or her net taxable income. The Government concentrated on that in trying to simplify the system. Lady Hollis shared some of her thoughts with the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has cited them here, owing to their relevance to the Government's thinking. We have engaged in various debates, but we still believe that we are doing the right thing, and that introducing an upper limit would lead to an inconsistency between the treatment of non-resident parents with relatively high incomes and that of parents receiving more modest sums.
I think that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who wrestled publicly with the difficulties with which we are all trying to deal, was right to concentrate on living standards rather than incomes for children. We are not talking merely about set incomes, and what goes to particular children. We are not talking just about food and clothing.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Gainsborough said that no children, even those living in well-off households, would, in a mathematical sense, have exactly equal shares of the income involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not keep his children in the garage: I trust that they live in the house, and share in the general standard of income.

Mr. Leigh: My kids are probably in the garage.

Angela Eagle: They may prefer to play in the garage to get out of the hon. Gentleman's way, but I presume and hope that he does not keep them there permanently.
Amendment No. 88 seeks to reduce the amount of maintenance payable under the maintenance calculation when the net income of the parent with care exceeds that of the non-resident parent. Let me explain the basic structure of the incomes of parents with care in the current CSA case load. Of those parents, 677,000 have no earned income; 84,000 earn less than £100 a week; 6,900 earn more than £200 a week; only 580 earn more than £350 a week, and only 200 earn more than £500 a week.
The vast majority of parents with care have only a modest income, and have been left to look after the children. According to the CSA structure, the non-resident parent has a duty to ensure that the children whom he has fathered are looked after properly, and to be financially responsible for their continued maintenance—to the extent that he can be, given the test applied to his income. It is almost always women with low incomes who are left to look after the children.
Amendment No. 88 would require a huge increase in means testing, and the Conservatives have already told us that they are opposed to that. In seeking to simplify the CSA formula, we aim to abolish means-testing of the parent with care and, perhaps, the means-testing of her partner, the non-resident parent's new partner and so forth. If amendment No. 88 were adopted, the CSA would have nearly 1 million cases on its books by the time that the reform was introduced. The amendment requires the CSA, instead of applying one simple, quick means test to the non-resident parent, to apply four means tests per case to establish the income of the new partner of the non-resident parent, as well as that of the new partner of the parent with care if such a person exists.
The amendment would reintroduce a huge amount of means testing in a very few cases, and would destroy all the simplicity that has been introduced. It would return us to the problem that we face now: the problem of ensuring that the right balance exists between the need to make a maintenance assessment quickly and simply, and the need to spend time enforcing it.
The Liberal Democrat proposals deal with the basic payment of £5 that the Bill introduces for all non-resident parents, regardless of whether they are receiving benefit. I understand the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon about people on low incomes: that is why the Bill introduces different levels of payments, including a minimum payment for those whose incomes are below £100 a week. It does not specify percentages, but it provides for that £5 minimum. We think that all fathers, except in a few circumstances—when they are still at school or in prison—should make some payments.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 seek to introduce a radical change. They require a nil rate of liability when a non-resident parent or his partner receives a benefit prescribed for the purposes of the legislation. They also provide for the flat rate to be specified in regulations when a non-resident parent has income of £100 a week or less and has a partner who is also liable for child support.
I can reassure Members that special provision will be made for the flat rate when a non-resident parent on an

income-related benefit has a partner who is also liable for child support. The intention is for the flat rate payable by each member of a couple receiving income support, or income-based jobseeker's allowance, to be half the standard flat rate. The £5 minimum is a maximum as well: it can be split equally and £2.50 can go to each child. However, it cannot become £10. I hope that that offers some reassurance.
The exemptions in respect of payment of contributions for maintenance have been removed. The current scheme exempts some people with quite high incomes. All fathers, whether on benefit or in work, have a responsibility to contribute to their child's upkeep, but we recognise that a simple percentage calculation does not adequately reflect the difficulties that are faced by those on low incomes—hence the £5.
It is important to keep in mind another key part of our child support reforms: the introduction of the child maintenance premium, ensuring that the money that is paid—all £5 of it—goes directly to the child. It is not, in that sense, a Treasury support agency, which has been one of the major objections and reasons why people on benefits do not pay.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned social fund users. He was gracious enough to admit that the vast majority—in fact, it is not the vast majority, but a large proportion—of social fund users are women on income support, who will benefit from the £10 maintenance disregard when benefit is paid. Under his amendments, they would not: they would not receive the maintenance disregard because they would not receive any maintenance. There is an evening out.
I hope that Members will oppose all the amendments.

Mr. Pickles: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 87, but with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on amendment No. 88.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 88, in page 83, line 7, at beginning insert—

' "( )(a) Following the calculation of the amount payable by the non-resident parent the Secretary of State shall determine the net weekly income of the parent with care in like manner to the determination of the net weekly income of the non-resident parent.

(b) Where the net weekly income of the parent with care exceeds the net weekly income of the non-resident parent of the Secretary of State shall in such manner as may be prescribed reduce the amount of child support maintenance payable by the non-resident parent.

(c) Where the non-resident parent is liable to pay child support maintenance to more than one person the provisions of (a) shall apply to each parent with care and the reductions in the amount payable provided for by (b) shall apply to the amounts payable to each of those parents with care in receipt of a net weekly income greater than that of the non-resident parent.".'.—[Mr. Pickles.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 271.

Division No. 130]
[7.11 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Ballard, Jackie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beggs, Roy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bercow, John






Beresford, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Bernard


Blunt, Crispin
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard



Boswell, Tim
Keetch, Paul


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brady, Graham
Key, Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Brazier, Julian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burns, Simon
Livsey, Richard


Burstow, Paul
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Luff, Peter


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chidgey, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey



Mates, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Moss, Malcolm


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Norman, Archie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Evans, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Faber, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forsythe, Clifford
Rendel, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robertson, Laurence


Fox, Dr Liam
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gale, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick



Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Harris, Dr Evan
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Townend, John


Horam, John
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel





Webb, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willetts, David
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Keith Simpson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darvill, Keith


Alexander, Douglas
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dawson, Hilton


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dismore, Andrew


Atkins, Charlotte
Donohoe, Brian H


Austin, John
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Edwards, Huw


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ennis, Jeff


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flint, Caroline


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings).


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blizzard, Bob
Foulkes, George


Borrow, David
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Galloway, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gerrard, Neil


Browne, Desmond
Gibson, Dr Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Gunnell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)






Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Salter, Martin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Savidge, Malcolm


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Sawford, Phil


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sedgemore, Brian


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Shipley, Ms Debra


Khabra, Piara S
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Kidney, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Singh, Marsha


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Skinner, Dennis


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Linton, Martin
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Soley, Clive


Love, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McAvoy, Thomas
Squire, Ms Rachel


McCabe, Steve
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stevenson, George


McDonnell, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


McNulty, Tony
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McWilliam, John
Stringer, Graham


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mallaber, Judy
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mitchell, Austin
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Todd, Mark


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Mountford, Kali
Truswell, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Norris, Dan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tynan, Bill


O'Hara, Eddie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Perham, Ms Linda
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David


Pope, Greg
White, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Winnick, David


Rapson, Syd
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wood, Mike


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Woodward, Shaun


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Woolas, Phil


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Mike Hall and


Ruddock, Joan
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 83, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph 4(1) and insert—
'4.—(1) Except in a case falling within sub-paragraph (2), a flat rate of £5 is payable if the nil rate does not apply and the non-resident parent's net weekly income is £100 or less.'.—[Mr. Webb.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 269.

Division No. 131]
[7.25 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ballard, Jackie



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Livsey, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert



Moore, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Sanders, Adrian



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Chidgey, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sir Robert Smith.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Alexander, Douglas
Casale, Roger


Allen, Graham
Caton, Martin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cawsey, Ian


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Chaytor, David


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atherton, Ms Candy



Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Cohen, Harry


Beggs, Roy
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Jean


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)



Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burden, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drew, David






Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McIsaac, Shona


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Edwards, Huw
McNulty, Tony


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mactaggart, Fiona


Ennis, Jeff
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mallaber, Judy


Fisher, Mark
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Flint, Caroline
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Forsythe, Clifford
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Foulkes, George
Miller, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin


Galloway, George
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gardiner, Barry
Morley, Elliot


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mountford, Kali


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Godman, Dr Norman A
Norris, Dan


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Goggins, Paul
O'Hara, Eddie


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Perham, Ms Linda


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pickthall, Colin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Plaskitt, James


Grocott, Bruce
Pope, Greg


Grogan, John
Pound, Stephen


Gunnell, John
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hanson, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Primarolo, Dawn


Healey, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Quinn, Lawrie


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Heppell, John
Rapson, Syd


Hill, Keith
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Hinchliffe, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Hope, Phil
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Howells, Dr Kim
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Hoyle, Lindsay
Rooney, Terry


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rowlands, Ted


Humble, Mrs Joan
Roy, Frank


Hutton, John
Ruane, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Salter, Martin


Jamieson, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Jenkins, Brian
Sawford, Phil


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Shaw, Jonathan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Singh, Marsha


Khabra, Piara S
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Snape, Peter


Linton, Martin
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Love, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


McAvoy, Thomas
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCabe, Steve
Steinberg, Gerry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Stevenson, George


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McDonnell, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)





Stinchcombe, Paul
Tynan, Bill


Stoate, Dr Howard
Vis, Dr Rudi


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Walley, Ms Joan


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wareing, Robert N


Stringer, Graham
Watts, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Todd, Mark
Wood, Mike


Touhig, Don
Woodward, Shaun


Trickett, Jon
Worthington, Tony


Truswell, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 85, line 23, leave out from "7(4)" to "or" in line 24 and insert—
'(or that Table as modified pursuant to regulations made under paragraph 10A(2)(a)),'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 37, 38, 44, 53, 57, 39, 41, 49 to 52, 58, 60, 61 and 45 to 47.

Mr. Rooker: This group of amendments serves two purposes. First, it improves the Bill's drafting, to ensure that the Bill does what we intended and its provisions work. Secondly, it makes some consequential amendments to other Acts. Some of the changes are more significant than others, and I shall spend a very short time describing in some detail the amendments that I think will be of interest.
Amendment No. 38 will close a loophole that allows non-resident fathers of children whose birth was registered in Northern Ireland to delay payment of child support by denying that they are the child's father. It makes changes to provisions that enable the Child Support Agency to presume paternity. Articles 14 and 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 mirror provisions in sections 10 and 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which applies in England and Wales. Clause 15 of the Bill aligns English and Welsh provisions with those in Scotland. That is why we intend to allow the CSA to presume that any non-resident parent living in England and Wales is the child's father if he was registered as the father in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 44 replaces the existing subsection (3) of the new section 55A on declarations of status, inserted into the Family Law Act 1986 by clause 76 of the Bill, with a new provision that achieves the same effect, but in a much clearer way.
The rest of the amendments in this group fall equally into three broad groups. The first group is composed of minor drafting changes that ensure that the Bill works as we intended and picks up minor errors in the text.
The second group is composed of consequential changes that make necessary amendments to other Acts in England, Wales and Scotland, to reflect the new provisions of the child support legislation. Some other Acts refer to child support. The Army Act 1955, for example, provides for how child support will be deducted from a serviceman's pay. Changes in the child support provisions must, therefore, be reflected in that legislation.
The final group deals with legislation that is being repealed. It is usual practice to repeal provisions in other Acts that are made redundant by new child support legislation.
I hope that the House will accept that these amendments are sensible and necessary to ensure that the legislation works properly and as intended. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 1, leave out Clause 2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
'(4) In section 8(3) of the 1991 Act the word "vary" shall be deleted where it appears after the words "it would otherwise have to make,".'.

Mr. George: The Minister said, perhaps correctly, that there was a possibility that amendment No. 76 was not technically up to standard. With this opportunity for sober second thought, we should ensure that, while we are trying to put right past mistakes, we do not maintain the current legislative fiasco—which is what Parliament has achieved on the past few occasions when we have addressed the issue—in child support.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 77 is to provide us with every opportunity to ensure that pressure is taken off the CSA, and that the court welfare system can be used not to replace, but to aid and support, the CSA. Use of the court welfare system should at least help in preventing the CSA from taking the full brunt and burden of child support work. Current CSA legislation allows for an agreement between the parent with care and the non-resident parent to be incorporated into a court order where the two parents are able to reach an agreement. This is a valuable and greatly used provision, which allows for negotiation between parents and relieves the CSA of work. Clause 2 would effectively remove that provision. Any agreement reached and fixed in a court order will be capable of being overturned after a year, which would make a mockery of the court order.
The new clause would allow parents who believe that they can do better out of the CSA to break the agreement in the court order. This runs counter to developments in Europe, and in matters relating to children and finances generally. The overwhelming trend is towards mediation and discussion, and the use—as far as possible—of agreement between both sides.
There are numerous situations where parents may want to opt out of the CSA system. One might be when parents agree that the payments for the children would be greater

than the CSA would assess. Often, this is as a result of a trade-off. The parent with care may make no maintenance claim for herself in return for a better payment regime for the child or children. A second example might be where parents agree to a lesser sum than the CSA would prescribe; for example, the non-resident parent may transfer capital or the house to enable the parent with care and the children to remain housed, with the mother accepting a lesser level of maintenance in return.
Approval by courts for parental agreements protects both parents from being pressurised and provides an established and straightforward system. There are no apparent benefits from building into a court system a get-out provision which can produce reasonable and realistic maintenance agreements.
In amendment No. 77, we seek to retain the court as a viable option, while not denying the powers of the CSA, by giving the court the power to vary a court order and thus giving the court order a longer shelf-life. Some families will insist that they wish to base their financial arrangements not around the hazards of the CSA system as they see it—certainly, past practice would suggest that they would be right—but around an assumption, for example, that they will look at the global costs of a child from time to time, and meet them in certain percentages.
The scheme is increasingly common, particularly as more and more settlements result from mediation; a trend which is to be welcomed. This is a way in which parents can continue to be involved in the parenting of their children after separation, and it is a child-centred scheme. Such parents will be advised that they cannot opt out of the CSA scheme. Either has the right, after one year, to approach the CSA—a process that will lead to a standard assessment and the termination of the court order. Such parents may wish to make legally binding promises to repay any sums above—or, for other parents, below—the court order, with penalties. That will be a powerful disincentive to approach the CSA.

Mr. Burns: What confidence does the hon. Gentleman have that his amendment would not lead to a return to the problems before the CSA, when courts awarded different amounts, some of which were ludicrously small and not in the interests of the mother?

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is fair and reasonable, and it is clear that these amendments provide an opportunity for a second thought before proceeding in the rather draconian way that is proposed. We do not propose to go back to the vagaries and failures of the past, but, rather, to go forward to a system that takes into account the failures of the CSA. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the CSA is providing a sound basis for child support and represents a success, most hon. Members would disagree.

Mr. Burns: Success is a difficult thing to assess accurately but, with all its flaws, the current CSA has been a better mechanism for calculating a more realistic level of child maintenance than the old court system was. It is not a question of going back to something that has failed. If we go back too far—to the courts—mothers would be infinitely worse off than they are even under the existing regime.

Mr. George: That is a fair point, but we are not talking about going back. Many of the criticisms of the past


system are fair, but we are proposing to go forward. There is no reason why courts could not set guidelines for the settlement of arrangements between the parent with care and the non-resident parent in the same way as the court does in many other areas.

Angela Eagle: Would the hon. Gentleman share with the House how the Liberal Democrats are proposing to move forward? The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is quite right; the court system has failed in the past to provide adequate maintenance for many children. Could he spend a little time letting us know how on earth the Liberal Democrats propose to make the courts work?

Mr. George: That is rather outside the terms and the spirit of the amendment. The Minister may like to reflect on the broad points before we simply hand too much work to an agency that has shown that it is incapable of coping with its present work load. We have tabled probing amendments, which should be welcomed if they provide a caveat to the Government to take some of the pressure off an overburdened CSA.

Mr. Dismore: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments about the CSA's ability to cope with the volume of work, what discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the court service about its potentially having to handle a million-plus cases? What discussions has he had with the Lord Chancellor's Department about how such cases should be financed—for example, the burden on the legal aid budget?

Mr. George: We have had discussions with a variety of organisations. I have laid out the justification for our proposals, and Conservative and Labour Members have sniped at that. The purpose of the amendments is clear and, before this House passes the Bill to another place, it is right for us to give an opportunity for reflection on whether the court welfare system might come to the support of the CSA.

Mr. Burns: I listened to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) with great interest and care. He rightly said in his concluding remarks that he is entitled, at this stage in the Bill's proceedings, to put forward suggestions for us to consider and accept or reject. I suspect that Ministers will reject them, and I hope that they do. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman means well, but the amendment would turn back the clock to the bad old days.
That would not help carers of children, most of whom would be mothers on benefit. However, it would be very popular with those absent parents—usually fathers—who want to escape or to minimise their financial responsibilities. Before I say any more, I should declare an interest. I pay child maintenance. I do not do so under the auspices of the CSA, although sometimes I wish that I did.
Labour and Liberal Democrat Members may have criticisms of the CSA as it was set up before this Government reformed it, but the formula was devised with the best of intentions. It was complicated, but the intention was to secure as fair a deal for parents as was possible in the circumstances. That applied both to absent parents and to the ones who looked after the children. The self-evident problem was that, in trying to be fair,

the previous Conservative Government devised a system that was so complex that it fell into disrepute almost from the beginning. That was partly because of its complexity, and partly because certain people wanted to ensure that the system did not work.
The Government's alternative is based on the principles of the CSA. Its benchmarks are simplicity and transparency. Over the coming months and years, we will find out whether that finds greater acceptance among parents of children who have to pay child maintenance through the auspices of the CSA. The jury is out, and will remain out for some time, on the question of whether the Government have got the thing right.
The hon. Member for St. Ives wants to change the Bill to reintroduce a court service. His aims and aspirations may be well intentioned, but he risks doing a great disservice to parents who care for children after a marriage or relationship breaks down. I say that because the courts were singularly inept in their calculation of child maintenance under the old court regime. That was owing to wide variations across the country in the cost of bringing up children. The extent of those variations was not proportional to distance. People ordered to pay £10 a week to bring up a child—even in those days, that was a ludicrous amount—felt aggrieved when they discovered that others in similar or better financial circumstances in terms of income were expected to pay even less. The disparities between awards were ludicrous.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the awards that were made was haphazard. Courts sometimes made realistic assessments of the amount of money that absent parents should pay towards bringing up their children, but those absent parents often paid no money at all, or only a little. As a result, mothers had to face the expense and the time-consuming problems associated with going back to court to get an order enforcing payment.
In addition, if absent parents were emphatic about dodging payment, they could string the court system along with 101 explanations of changed financial circumstances. That archaic system could easily be abused or interfered with by people determined not to pay, and it is not a good idea to return to it.
The courts have to make decisions using evidence about income and other matters that is given to them on the day of a hearing. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that guidance and guidelines could be set down, but they would not help to establish a system that most of the people involved would perceive to be fair and workable.
The hon. Gentleman then said that, after a year, parents could go to the CSA for what in effect would be justice. Why delay for a year? A year is a long time for a parent bringing up children on a low income and with all the anguish associated with the break-up of a relationship. Parents in that position would have to go to court to try to secure an income for their children, and they would also have to go through the nightmare of watching their former partners refusing to pay or front-loading their expenses to ensure that only an insultingly small amount was paid in the end.
According to the amendment, after a year of that, parents would have the option to revert to the CSA. I point out to the hon. Member for St. Ives that the Government's proposals mean that they could have turned to the CSA immediately—as they could have done under the slightly different provisions introduced by the previous Conservative Government.
When courts determine child support levels, the amounts vary significantly between families. The system put in place by the state ensures that the taxpayer does not have to foot the bill that one parent in a relationship does not want to pay. It also ensures greater consistency in the amounts being paid. That consistency will appear fairer to those who resort to the state system.
The proposal is well meaning but it does not address the difficulty. It would pose infinitely more problems for parents with care than the hon. Member for St. Ives either cares to admit or believes would be the case. Such a retrogressive step—going back to a system that was thrown out because the country would not tolerate it—would help no one.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raises some important concerns about a court-based system. They need to be answered, and I hope to build my response on the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George).
This issue is central to the Bill. When we debated it first, I recall that the Secretary of State said that only lawyers and Liberals want to go back to the courts. Yet the Department of Social Security pays academics such as Professor Jonathan Bradshaw of York university to do research on lone parents and absent parents. Professor Bradshaw is probably the country's leading academic expert on the problem of absent parents. Speaking about the Bill, he said that the Government had got it wrong. He said that it was a mistake to go for a rigid approach and that a court-based system allowing flexibility in individual cases was the right option.
I have checked and I am not aware that Professor Bradshaw is either a lawyer or a Liberal. He has no party political axe to grind and the Department pays him to study these matters. His research has led him to conclude that the Bill's rigid, rough-justice system is not necessarily the best strategy for the Government to adopt. I offer that as a third-party endorsement.
8 pm
When the Secretary of State tried to rubbish our proposals on Second Reading, he put a costing on them. Given that there seems to be some uncertainty as to what our proposals are, how did the right hon. Gentleman tell his civil servants to cost them? It shows how far-fetched that exercise was. For the benefit of the House and of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who raised some perfectly legitimate concerns, let me flesh out our proposals.
The hon. Gentleman raised two justified criticisms about the court-based system—relating to variability and enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives mentioned guidelines, which the hon. Gentleman did not believe went far enough. The courts are used to deciding on the merits of an individual case within guidelines—sentencing is the relevant analogy. The courts use guidelines to decide a specific sentence for a specific case. Sentencing guidelines can be wide, and we may not want such wide parameters for child maintenance, but an absence of variability would not produce the fairness that the hon. Gentleman seeks. He said, if I remember rightly,

that the system must be seen to be fair. Although wide variations do not create a sense of fairness, neither does treating unlike cases in a like manner.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example, which is loosely based on a constituency case. I have talked about this in the House before, and have never had a clear response from a Minister. A father in a couple enters into a commitment in anticipation of his marriage continuing. He gets a new job which he has to drive to, so he takes on a car loan. The couple then splits up. He has the continuing obligation of the car loan debt to service. If he cannot keep the car, he cannot keep the job and he cannot pay the maintenance. The formula will take no account of that burden. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) is saying from a sedentary position "Take a bus." I assume that that is a facetious remark.
That is an example of how one can take on a commitment in good faith during a partnership that continues after the partnership is over. The new, very rigid formula does not take that into account, but a court, or some other discretionary process, could, without giving carte blanche for variations, allow for people who have good reasons why 15, 20 or 25 per cent. is in nobody's interest. If the person in my example has to pay 25 per cent. after the car loan has been paid, he may have to give up his job. That would be in nobody's interests, and we all care about the interests of children here.
We do not want to return to the old court system. The proposed system would give firm guidelines about the base figure, but would leave scope for limited variation in difficult circumstances.
The question has been asked: could the courts cope with this burden? Our strategy is that the courts would not be dealing with nine out of 10 cases. The scope for variation would be in the hard cases. There would be a limited number of bases on which one could argue that the percentage was not fair, and those would be handled before a court. People would have their day in court and argue their specific circumstances. Most standard cases would be handled according to a formula through the CSA or the courts. It would cost the same amount of money whoever did the sums, but there would be fallback situation, in which individual circumstances would be taken into account. That is why we think that a court-based system gives a balance between fairness and consistency.
On enforcement—

Caroline Flint: I want to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's example of the man with the car loan and the children. Surely if the man is in a relationship with children before his relationship breaks up, he is already contributing to their upkeep. Therefore, when he decides to take on a car loan while he is in a relationship, he will take into account the costs of maintaining his children. The children do not disappear before he takes on the car loan, and he should take that into account in his life style.

Mr. Webb: I think that the hon. Lady is missing the point. I am not sure whether she was in the Chamber for our earlier debate. In the Division on it, she voted against the proposal that the living standards of the parent with care should feature in the calculation. In the circumstances


that I have just described, let us suppose that the father is stretched in paying the car loan out of his own income. The family has managed to maintain the children by using some of the mother's wages. That is how they have squared the circle. After repaying the car loan, the dad may not have much money to pay towards the children's upkeep, but the family has pooled its resources. They cannot do that when the father moves out. He does not necessarily have spare cash.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would happen in the sort of family situation in which I grew up? What happens when the mother is left with loans which she has no way of paying back, and the court system does not deliver an equitable solution until years down the line? Will the hon. Gentleman address that problem in the context of his comments on enforcement?

Mr. Webb: The assessment under the Bill will take no account of the factors described by the hon. Gentleman—it will be 15 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's point strengthens my case that in those circumstances the welfare of the child probably demands a higher maintenance figure, but the Bill says that that cannot be done.

Mr. Burns: Under the amendment, what happens if the mother has caused the breakdown of the relationship by going off with someone else who is reasonably well off? One does not expect the CSA or the courts to take that person's income or wealth into account in paying for the upkeep of the children, but there will be a knock-on effect in, say, the quality of housing to which the mother and children move. In the point made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the car loan is taken into account. What impact will the third party on the mother's side have in the court's calculations under the hon. Gentleman's scheme?

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman's example highlights the often complex relationships in all cases. We would need to set out in regulations what the judge was allowed to take into account in exercising discretion. I do not immediately know the right answer on whether the judge should take that into account or how far it should be taken into account. We would need to sit down in a more measured way and ask whether something was legitimate for the court to take it into account.

Mr. Burns: What happens if the mother goes off with another man, but has got divorced on the two-year basis, so the divorce is not on the grounds of adultery? Does the court take the father's word for it that the mother has committed adultery and gone off with another man?

Mr. Webb: The last thing we want to do in setting the child maintenance level, which is about the child's welfare, is to get into the blame game. There is a formula that gives a guideline for what the child maintenance should be. Variations may arise from difference in material circumstances and commitment, but not from who was at fault.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that, under his proposal, about nine out of 10 cases would go to the CSA and not to the court. Now he has said that

everything is very complicated and every case is different. Does that not mean that every case would, in effect, go before a court?

Mr. Webb: The idea is that the formula, whether it is operated by the CSA or the court system, gives a baseline figure. People will say that the figure arrived at is not fair in their circumstances only if certain tests are satisfied. One of those tests will be whether it is thought that there should be a substantial variation in maintenance which is way out of line. The family will not want to go through the hassle of the court system if the variation is minor.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford spoke about a second family, and we all know that there are cases of third families. It is a complex matter. We are simply saying that there should be a baseline figure and individuals should have the right to say, under certain prescribed circumstances, that their case does not fit that, and there should be scope, in the name of fairness, for some variation.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman made a fascinating proposal, which is only now taking flesh as he responds to interventions—indeed, some of us feel that he may be making it up as he goes along. Will he tell us how his system would prevent what happens at present? People who do not want to pay—mostly fathers—create exceptional circumstances by changing their life style so they can get into arguments about departures from the norm and about the reduction of their income. Most of us are anxious that, if we allow too many departures, people will change their expenses regime to become an exceptional case so that they can argue about paying.

Mr. Webb: That is a fair comment. There is a balance to be struck between—

Mr. Browne: How do we do it?

Mr. Webb: The Government do it by taking only one end of the scale. They say there should be complete rigidity, with no reflection of individual circumstances. The example I cited is the case—more or less—of someone who came to my surgery. He had entered into a legitimate expense to keep a job to pay for the children. It is not in the interests of the child to adopt a rigid formula. The dad cannot pay because he has a car loan, so he gives up the job and no one gets anything. How is that fair? How is that in the interests of the child?
I do not want to prolong this matter unduly. We are only trying to point out that the Government have chosen one end of the scale. The amendments would allow scope for limited discretion—not as much as in the past—with better enforcement.
Enforcement is a problem, although I have not dwelt on that matter. However, there is a good argument that, when people have to fill in court papers, they do not respond as they would if they received papers from a Government agency. There is some—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may question that. My impression is that dealing with the courts, although not foolproof, has more cachet—because people associate courts with punishment—than dealing with a Government agency. There is no evidence that people take CSA paperwork seriously. Plenty of people ignore the CSA more readily than they would ignore the courts.
The Government have chosen one extreme; it will create rough justice. We shall have to return to these matters in future Parliaments because there will be so many cases of rough justice. We shall look back to this debate and say that perhaps we should have thought about flexibility rather than instituting a rigid system.

Angela Eagle: We have heard an interesting display of busking from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) who made up policy as he went along—apparently from the experience of only one case.
I want to share with the House the costs—on our current estimates—of moving back to the courts system. CSA running costs are £220 million a year. The Lord Chancellor's Department advises us that the average net cost of a family proceedings application is £80; for 1 million cases, that would be £80 million.
In addition, legal aid would be available; the average legal aid cost for child maintenance proceedings was about £1,700 in 1998–99. Assuming that about 50 per cent. of CSA cases are entitled to legal aid—a generous assumption, as 75 per cent. of parents with care are on benefit—that would amount to £850 million. Assuming only one hour's work on every case—another generous assumption, as most lawyers would tell us—at £200 an hour, the court costs would be £1 billion.
The hon. Gentleman proposes that we should create a system that costs five times more than the current CSA system on generous costing assumptions. He has given us no reassurance that the system would be as good as the one that we are trying to reform to make it even more effective.

Mr. Webb: As I pointed out, the Department is now trying to cost a scheme about which it claims not to know the details. That is rather odd. I have shown that, in our model, only about 10 per cent. of cases would reach court. Does not that reduce the cost to £100 million?

Angela Eagle: I have given the House costs for basic court proceedings on generous assumptions. I suspect that the court costs would soar as the ineffectiveness of the courts became apparent.

Mr. Burns: Does the Minister agree that, if absent parents had the opportunity to go to court to try their luck at minimising their child maintenance, many of them would take it, because they would have nothing to lose by doing so?

Angela Eagle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I agreed with most of his speech. It is hard to argue that the courts have a good history of dealing with such cases—even the Liberal Democrats have not tried to do that. The courts have an ignoble history in the protection of children in divorce cases. As many people know only too well, the former court system was discretionary and unfair. It left children in poverty and let non-resident parents off the hook.
That is why the House chose to move to an administrative system to deal with those issues. Since then, the number of people applying for maintenance

through the CSA has continued to rise. The agency has become more effective, although we realise that there are inherent design problems in the maintenance system that the House has asked it to administer. That is why we introduced the Bill, which will radically simplify the formula.
It is ridiculous to think that we could go back to the court system and that it would be effective—I suspect that Conservative Members would agree. I remain astonished that the Liberal Democrats do not realise that basic fact.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said that the amendment was a probing one. To delete the whole of clause 2 is a funny way to probe. The amendment would destroy one of the main provisions of the Bill, which would allow people access to the CSA and its services if they found themselves in difficulty with maintenance payments.
The Liberal Democrats seemed to have three concerns about our suggested system. The first was that it would allow the CSA to take on new court order cases that had been made at least 12 months after the new child support system was introduced, and that it would be swamped thereby. Last year, 8,100 new court orders involving child maintenance were made. The CSA's annual take on cases is 350,000, so if 8,000 can swamp 350,000, the Liberal Democrats have an odd view of mathematics.
The second Liberal Democrat argument was that allowing parents with court orders to use the CSA for a simple and predictable child support calculation would encourage parents to be unco-operative. That argument is difficult to follow, because, since the launch of the CSA in April 1993, courts can make orders for child maintenance only when parents have consented to a written maintenance agreement. That consent must exist before the court can make an order. If new facts subsequently come to light, or the payment arrangements break down, why should a parent not be given the choice of returning to court for the order to be varied or revoked, or of applying to the CSA for a child support maintenance calculation? There is no reason why that should not occur.
Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats argued that it would be perverse to unravel satisfactory arrangements and that to do so would be detrimental to children. However, leaving access to the CSA open would not have that effect. Only parents who were dissatisfied with existing arrangements would apply.
Our proposal would ensure that maintenance is right for children. Putting the interests of children first has led us down the road of reform of the CSA. Indeed, that created the CSA, even if the agency was not set up in the most appropriate and effective way. We learned as we went along how the administration of the system can be improved. Children will benefit from the provisions in clause 2. The provisions will give parents with court orders the choice between sticking with their existing maintenance arrangements, or asking the CSA to step in.
There is also considerable movement on and off benefit. A case that is private on one day can have a taxpayer interest on the next—10 per cent. of people a year move on and off income support and would qualify. Creating a system that deals with children more evenly must be a good way forward. That means that, when the circumstances of parents with care change, there will not be large differences in the maintenance that they can expect to receive.
The Liberal Democrats have not even remotely made a case for returning to the courts system. I hope that the House will take a sensible, realistic and hard-headed approach and vote against the amendments.

Mr. Andrew George: I guess from the Minister's response that she is not terribly enamoured of our amendment.
We have had a reasonable airing of the arguments. Although some hon. Members did not appreciate the seriousness of this very important matter, it is appropriate on Report at least to reflect on the fact that we are missing an opportunity to allow the court welfare system to operate.
Having listened to the arguments and taken all things into account, and on balance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

DEPARTURE FROM USUAL RULES FOR CALCULATING MAINTENANCE

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 8, line 23, leave out from "11," to end of line 26 and insert—
'and except in prescribed circumstances any appeal connected with it (under section 20) shall lapse.'.
I shall be brief, and I hope that the House accepts that. Amendment 36 relates to applications for a variation from the normal rules by which child support maintenance will be calculated. It amends the wording of sub-section (5) of section 28F.
Where a variation application is made before a final decision has been reached on the original maintenance application, the Secretary of State will, whenever possible, take the outcome of the variation application into account in reaching his decision on the maintenance application. Where, for whatever reason, he cannot immediately resolve the variation application, he will make an interim maintenance decision under section 12(2).
The amendment provides that, once the final decision has been made, any appeal against such an interim decision will normally lapse. That serves to simplify an otherwise quite complex and ludicrous process, under which an appeal would have proceeded against a decision that had subsequently been replaced.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

SUBSTITUTED SCHEDULES 4A AND 4B TO THE 1991 ACT

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 88, line 16, leave out subsection (4), and insert—
'(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b)—

(a) "illness" may have such meaning as may be prescribed; and
(b) "disability" shall have the same meaning as in Section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and

(c) the question whether an illness or disability is long-term shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
The purpose of the amendment is entirely serious: to clarify the definition of "disability". Under applications for a variation of provisions in schedule 2, the Secretary of State is oddly left to define "disability". Although it is conceivable that the Secretary of State may need discretion over defining "illness" and "long-term", we have in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, under which a commission is to be set up, a firm definition of "disability". Section 1 states:
a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
There are two main arguments for the amendment, on which I can be brief because they are self-explanatory. The first is an administrative argument. The Disability Discrimination Act must be used. If the Government do not get into the habit of using it where they should do so, its worth will be devalued and it will not automatically be referred to as a benchmark.
The second reason is ideological, and I would have thought the Labour Government would approve of it. The Government have committed themselves to civil rights and equality of opportunity, for which I applaud them. In this instance, however, they are leaving aside an important piece of civil rights legislation. That undermines the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government's wider aims of social inclusion.
I therefore ask the Minister at least to acknowledge the fact that there is legislation that provides a more helpful definition of "disability". The Secretary of State could be left with some discretion over the terms "long-term" and "illness".

Angela Eagle: I hope to persuade the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) of the fact that the Bill applies a reasonable definition of "disability", and to explain to him why we do not think that it is appropriate that the definition suggested in the amendment should apply in such circumstances.
Amendment No. 79 relates to the provision under which the Secretary of State may agree to vary the normal child support maintenance calculations on the ground that a non-resident parent is incurring costs attributable to the long-term illness or disability of a child who lives with him as a member of the second family. That is the sole reason why we need a definition in this context.
The provision, and the associated definitions of "disability" and "long-term", are features of the departures scheme, which was introduced by the Opposition when in government in December 1996. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the amendment would re-define "disability" by reference to section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In considering a variation on such a ground, the Secretary of State will be concerned with the costs associated with any disability. Given that there is already a benefit that is dedicated to helping disabled people with the extra costs that they may have to meet—disability living allowance—we propose to provide in regulations that a child will be considered "disabled" if either the care component, the mobility component or both components


of DLA are in payment to any person on his behalf, or if he is registered blind. The same qualifying conditions apply to awards of the disabled child premium in income support. That creates consistency across the range of benefits, which is important for administrative purposes.
Having established that such conditions are met, the Secretary of State will need only to consider the evidence that the non-resident parent provides on the additional costs associated with the disabling condition. Our view is that the definition of "disability" that we intend to prescribe is a reasonable one, and that it will be a much more straightforward and objective test for the Child Support Agency to apply than the one proposed in the amendment. The latter would require the agency to make judgments of a medical nature—a task for which it is not qualified—aimed at employers, defining "disability" in employment. It is complex, running to 15 pages of guidance, and appealable to courts and industrial tribunals. In this context, we do not think that that is the best definition of "disability".
I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have a good, quick, simple and consistent definition of "disability" in the social security system and that our suggestion will be much simpler, quicker and easier to apply. It will not disadvantage anyone; the appropriate people will still be described as "disabled". I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I am pleased that I probed the matter because it was unclear. Her reassurances have been helpful. I am sure that the organisations for the disabled that expressed concern about the phraseology will be, as I am, reassured by her response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 11, line 40, leave out ""or" and insert—
'"(or application treated as made), or'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 15

PRESUMPTION OF PARENTAGE IN CHILD SUPPORT CASES

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 13, line 36, after "1965" insert—
', or under Article 14 or 18(l)(b)(ii) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 75

TESTS FOR DETERMINING PARENTAGE

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 79, line 1, after "tests)" insert—
'—(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 43, 82 and 54 to 56.

Mr. Rooker: I can deal with the amendments briefly, but in two parts. Apart from amendment No. 82, which I shall come to shortly, the amendments are technical. I will set out broadly what they cover.
Through amendments Nos. 42, 43, 54, 55 and 56, we are making a number of consequential changes to the rules to establish paternity. Clause 75 will amend the Family Law Reform Act 1969 to make changes to arrangements for court-ordered blood tests to establish paternity, so that authority to carry out the tests can be given to accredited laboratories rather than to individual testers approved for that purpose by the Lord Chancellor.
Although laboratories, rather than individual testers, will be accredited in general terms to carry out the tests, reports to the court with the results of tests in individual cases will still be made by the individual tester who has carried out the test. The references to "person" in section 20(2) of the 1969 Act could be construed as including a body of persons, which would cover the laboratory. Amendment No. 43 therefore replaces that reference with a reference to "the tester", and follows the change through in subsections (4) and (5) of the Act. It clarifies that the report to the court is to be made by the individual person responsible for carrying out the test—that is the tester—and that that individual can be required to provide a further statement to the court amplifying the report or to be called as a witness in subsequent proceedings.
Amendment No. 42 and part of amendment No. 54 are related drafting amendments. The remaining part of amendment No. 54, and amendments Nos. 55 and 56, are consequential changes in connection with the introduction, through clause 76, of the new section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986.
Amendment No. 82 will make a much more substantial change. It will change the procedure for court-ordered paternity testing. It will enable the court to overrule a refusal of consent by a person with care and control of a child under 16 to a direction to take a blood sample from the child to establish its paternity, where the court is satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the child for the sample to be taken.
The amendment relates to part III of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which enables the court to direct the use of blood tests to resolve a dispute about paternity that has arisen in the course of civil proceedings. The need for the amendment was highlighted by a recent case. I have not checked the date, but I believe that the case took place after the Bill was published and may have even been after its Second Reading.
A judgment in the High Court by Mr. Justice Wall held that, under the current law contained in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, the court had no power to enforce a direction for taking a blood sample from a child under 16 to establish paternity, if the person with care and control of the child refuses to consent to the sample being taken. The judge's view is that, as a result, the 1969 Act may not comply with the European convention on human rights in that it can deny the child the opportunity to know about its parentage.
The amendment will put the onus the other way. A child will have a right to know who its parents are, and that is why taking a sample may be necessary. However, a court—and obviously not the child—will judge whether that is in the child's interests.
The Government believe that the law does not adequately protect the interests of children. That case shows that it is clearly unsatisfactory that the person with care and control of the child, who may well also be a party to the proceedings, should be able to frustrate proceedings to prevent the child's paternity being established. That can deny the child the right to know its father, and the father the right to be recognised as such and to play a part in his child's upbringing. I am assuming, of course, that the mother has care of the child.
The amendment therefore focuses on the best interests of the child. In deciding whether to give a direction for tests to establish paternity, the court will have the flexibility to distinguish between cases where establishing paternity is in the child's best interests, and those where it may not be. It will be up to the court to make the decision.
Where the child is old enough to express a view, the court will take such views into account in reaching its decision. The amendment will support that process by ensuring that directions given in the best interests of the child can be effectively enforced, and it will ensure that the law in this area complies with the European convention.

Mr. Pickles: We had long discussions in Committee about the problem of an unreasonable refusal and the consequences that would flow from that. I presume that those problems will move away because a child will have a right to discover, and the court will help to determine, its parentage. Will one of the factors in the court's determination be whether the child receives maintenance?

Mr. Rooker: I have not taken advice on that question, but I think that the answer would probably be no. The issue is determining paternity. Maintenance would flow from a decision on paternity, but the decision on that would be taken later by another body.
I made every effort to get as many of the Government's amendments to the Bill as it was on Second Reading tabled in time for debate in Committee, where we could have held detailed discussions. I regret that I was not able to do that. We had to take advice on the judgment that I have mentioned and we had to discuss it in government, so it was not possible to bring this amendment to Committee where we could have spent more time on it. However, I think that my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is correct.
The amendment will ensure that the courts can enforce directions for tests to establish paternity so that the interests of children are properly considered and protected. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Burns: I listened carefully to the Minister. Everything that he said seemed eminently sensible to me as a layman. However, will he help me with an highly unusual constituency problem that is relevant to the amendments and the existing law on parentage as it affects the CSA?
A constituent came to see me, who, some years ago, had had a relationship with a girlfriend that had ended, I suspect, against her wishes. Two or three years later, he married his current wife. He, his current wife and his ex-wife were then bothered by the former girlfriend to the extent that the police were involved. After he had

remarried, the CSA contacted him out of the blue to say that he had a two-year-old child from his relationship with his former girlfriend, that she was on benefit and that he needed to provide details of his income for assessment.
That news came as a tremendous surprise to my constituent, because he was totally unaware at the time of the relationship that his girlfriend was pregnant and because the timing of the pregnancy did not coincide with when he went out with her. He demanded and was granted a blood test by the CSA, which, to his amazement, proved that the child was his.
There is nothing particularly unusual about such a case. However, my constituent then thought more about the matter, because he could not understand, from the time scale, how his ex-girlfriend could have conceived the child. It transpired that, during his relationship with her, there had been a time when she wanted, and he agreed, to conceive a child, but she had problems conceiving. He had agreed to participate in in vitro fertilisation treatment and some of his sperm were frozen in a sperm bank. After the relationship had ended, she had managed—I can only assume illegally, because he had not given his permission—to get hold of the sperm, and a successful conception took place.
My constituent argues that these are highly unusual circumstances, which they are, if they are 100 per cent. true, and I have no reason to doubt that they are. He did not want a child at the time when the child was conceived and born; he did not agree to his sperm being used, but he has heard from the CSA that the blood test in which he participated voluntarily has proved that he is the natural father. He argues that it is unfair that, under the child support regime, he is automatically expected to pay maintenance.
If one assumes that everything that I have been told and relayed to the House is accurate, is that gentlemen, in law, responsible for the financial upkeep of a child whom he did not want to be conceived and who was conceived, it would seem, by devious, if not illegal, means?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has clearly described the circumstances as he understands them, so I understand the question perfectly. However, I shall not even begin to attempt to answer it from the Dispatch Box. I shall not ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me because I understand the question; I shall write to him giving the best advice that I can.
Hon. Members come to Ministers with all kinds of cases, but I have not had one quite like that. I recently dealt with a case in which a man had admitted that he was the father, but two years later, after a CSA blood test and court case, it turned out that he was not. Such cases are part of human life.
The hon. Gentleman has asked an important question that deserves an answer, because I suspect that the situation is not unique. I shall seek advice and write to him.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind offer, which I would like to take up, but to save him and his officials wasting their time, I can tell him that if he contacts Mrs. Faith Boardman, she will give him detailed


evidence of what my constituent has said. I should, however, appreciate an answer from the Minister as well as from Mrs. Boardman.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, of course. The specifics of the individual case are one thing, but there is also a general question about the issues that the hon. Member raised, so I will look into the matter and write to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:No. 43, in page 79, line 8, at end insert—

'(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for "person responsible for" there shall be substituted "individual", and
(ii) after "this section" there shall be inserted "("the tester")";
(c) in subsection (4), for "the person who made the report" there shall be substituted "the tester"; and
(d) in subsection (5)—

(i) for "the person responsible for carrying out the tests taken for the purpose of giving effect to the direction, or any" there shall be substituted "the tester, or any other",
(ii) for "that person" there shall be substituted "the tester or that other person", and
(iii) after "and where" there shall be inserted "the tester or".'.

No. 82, in page 79, line 8, at end insert—

'( ) In section 21 (consents, etc., required for the taking of blood samples), in subsection (3), for the words "if the person who has the care and control of him consents" there shall be substituted—

"(a) if the person who has the care and control of him consents; or
(b) where that person does not consent, if the court considers that it would be in his best interests for the sample to be taken.".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 76

DECLARATIONS OF STATUS

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 80, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert—
'(3) Except in a case falling within subsection (3A) below, the court shall refuse to hear an application under subsection (1) above unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient personal interest in the determination of the application (but this is subject to section 27 of the Child Support Act 1991).
(3A) The excepted cases are where the declaration sought is as to whether or not—

(a) the applicant is the parent of a named person;
(b) a named person is the parent of the applicant; or
(c) a named person is the other parent of a named child of the applicant.'—[Mr. Rooker.]

Schedule 8

DECLARATIONS OF STATUS: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made:No. 53, in page 128, line 6, leave out '55A(5)' and insert '55A(6) or 56(4)"'.

No. 54, in page 128, line 38, leave out from "1987" to end of line 41 and insert—

'(a) in subsection (2) to be substituted for section 20(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (report to court about scientific tests), for "person responsible for" there shall be substituted "individual"; and

(b) in subsection (2A) to be inserted in section 20 of that Act (blood tests in proceedings under section 56 of the Family Law Act 1986), for "56" there shall be substituted "55A or 56".'.

No. 55, in page 129, line 24, leave out "Where" and insert "This section applies where".

No. 56, in page 129, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
'( ) Where this section applies—

(a) if it is the person with care who makes the application, he shall be treated as having a sufficient personal interest for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section; and
(b) if it is the Secretary of State who makes the application, that subsection shall not apply.'.

No. 57, in page 129, line 43, at end insert—

'The Access to Justice Act 1999 (c.22)

. In Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (services which are not to be funded as part of community legal services), in paragraph 2(3), after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
(da) under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 (declarations of parentage),".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 16

DISQUALIFICATION FROM DRIVING

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 14, line 22, leave out "the liable person's" and insert "his".

No. 40, in page 15, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) Where a court—

(a) makes a disqualification order;
(b) makes an order under subsection (5); or
(c) allows an appeal against a disqualification order,
it shall send notice of that fact to the Secretary of State; and the notice shall contain such particulars and be sent in such manner and to such address as the Secretary of State may determine.>
( ) Where a court makes a disqualification order, it shall also send the driving licence and its counterpart, on their being produced to the court, to the Secretary of State at such address as he may determine.'.

No. 41, in page 16, line 29, leave out "40A(8)" and insert "40A(10)".—[Mr. Rooker.]

Clause 19

REDUCED BENEFIT DECISIONS

Mr. Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 20, line 7, at end insert—
'(9A) Where the parent with care has complied with obligations imposed by section 6 of the 1991 Act, the Secretary of State shall be legally responsible for the confidentiality of information relating to the parent with care.'.
This takes us back to a debate that we had on amendment No. 76, and touches on the issue of good cause. I appreciate that in her responses on this matter the Minister has thus far demonstrated a sincere acceptance of its seriousness. Secretaries of State change, but under the Bill as it stands, we have to trust the Secretary of State to observe an appropriately precautionary principle when dealing with cases involving domestic violence and violence against women. Despite all the assurances, which I believe are genuine, the matter depends in part on the


Secretary of State's discretion, and in part on an unclear provision about the basis of the evidence for the threat of violence.
8.45 pm
I shall provide an example of a failure, not by the CSA, but by ourselves as legislators, which demonstrates the need for caution in the Bill. It is the case of a constituent of mine, formerly Dina Russell of Torquay, but known as Georgina McCarthy when, tragically, in May 1998, she was horrifically murdered by her former husband, Paul Russell. The crime occurred in her home in Penzance, in the presence of her one-and-a-half-year-old son, who was subsequently abducted. Her former husband was convicted of the crime in June last year.
That case demonstrates the failure of the system, because everything was done that could have been done in the face of a known and recorded threat. There were witnesses to the fact that Paul Russell intended to murder that poor woman. Every means available within the system and under the law was employed to protect her, but the system itself failed, with tragic results. Paul Russell used family law—section 8 of the Children Act 1989—to obtain a seek-and-find order from the court. The legal process was quashed, but not before it had already provided him with sufficient information to establish in which part of the country his former wife lived. The case exposed weaknesses in court procedure, the Children Act and family law, and flaws in the interplay between civil and criminal law. Court procedures were observed and the police and social services did everything according to the law in order to protect that women, but, ultimately, they and the system failed.
The CSA does not come into that case; Paul Russell did not use it to track down his former wife. However, there is a fear that the provisions of the Bill as it stands might enable women who have been subjected to domestic violence to be tracked down. About 100 women are murdered every year, and about half know their murderer. Far too many women suffer domestic violence; whether that ultimately leads to murder or severe harm, it is obviously not in the best interests of women or children for the system to permit information to be made available to husbands, partners, former husbands and former partners who might use the information to track them down.
I accept that the clause provides a reasonable belt around this issue, and earlier responses from the Minister have reassured me that she and her Department have a genuine intention to ensure that everything is done to protect women who are liable to be threatened with abuse and violence. The purpose of the amendment is to provide braces—I apologise for the use of a male gender metaphor—as well as the belt of the clause. The amendment lays responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that information relating to the parent carer remains confidential. That would put an added pressure on the Secretary of State to be extremely circumspect about the circumstances in which information is divulged.
As Members of Parliament, we all have a heavy burden to bear in voting through legislation that could have a damaging effect on people's lives. I appreciate that the amendment would impose a heavy burden on the Secretary of State. Serious concerns surround this issue and I know that the Minister is aware of them. Many

organisations have written to Ministers about the clause and about the evidence that the Secretary of State may require to justify that there is good cause not to disclose information. It is not clear at this stage at what level that evidence is required. One way of providing some assurance is to lay a legal responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure, in cast iron terms, that the information is protected and that women are protected also within the system.
In the earlier debate on this matter, the Minister maintained that the CSA had improved its service. She said that it gathers information discreetly and informs people who come into contact with it of all the available options and the consequences of certain actions. However, that did not add up to a detailed explanation of how the CSA would fully assess the risk to the parent with care, or the child, in each case. The amendment seeks to place pressure for such an explanation to be made by proposing that the Secretary of State—effectively the CSA—should be liable if the confidentiality of information is breached. We fear most that that breach of confidentiality will result in danger to women.
On that basis, we believe that the amendment properly reflects the seriousness with which the relevant information is to be gathered and protected by the CSA. I hope that the Government will accept it. It provides the necessary assurances to many women who fear acts of violence, which none of us wants to see perpetrated as a result of leaked information.

Angela Eagle: I start by assuring the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that we take extremely seriously issues of violence against women. I hope that I can reassure him that protections are already in place that adequately ensure that we can make good our concern and minimise any risk to women who may be subject to violence.
Before dealing with that, I shall say a little about the tragic case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, involving Georgina McCarthy. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department are considering the issues surrounding the court processes for contact proceedings, which led to that individual being able to track down his ex-partner, with the consequences that the hon. Gentleman described to the House. I know that, when conclusions have been reached, the hon. Gentleman will be informed of them. However, as he said, the CSA was not involved in that instance in the breach of confidentiality that led to such a tragic result.
Amendment No. 81 would create a legal obligation for the CSA to protect the confidentiality of information provided by parents with care on benefit who are treated as applying for a child support calculation. That is an important matter and raises the question of what guarantees can be given to any client of the CSA.
Parents with care are treated as applying for child support under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 if they are claiming income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. There is a right to opt out of child support action, but opting out can attract a benefit penalty, as we discussed earlier. The benefit penalty is applied if the parent cannot show that child support action would lead to a risk of harm or undue distress.
A benefit penalty may also be imposed if the parent with care refuses without good reason to provide sufficient information to enable the non-resident parent to


be traced. Given that she has limited choice in the matter, it is important that she can feel confident that her confidentiality will be protected.
I must emphasise that, if there is a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent with care or her children, she is not required to provide information to the agency at all—she can opt out of the process before it begins, without any penalty being imposed.
There is an important second line of protection—the absolute duty on the CSA to protect personal information. The Government attach considerable weight to that duty, both because we are committed to the proper handling of personal information, and because we want people to be confident in using the CSA.
To assess and collect child support, we inevitably need to know a lot about the parents and their families. Much of the information is very personal, and no one else should be able to gain access to it through the CSA.
I can assure hon. Members that the CSA takes seriously its obligations to protect the confidentiality of personal information about its clients. That is why anyone working for the CSA is guilty of a criminal offence if, without lawful authority, he or she discloses information, acquired in the course of that employment, that relates to a particular person. Such an offence can, on conviction, result in a prison sentence of up to two years. I can tell the House that, since 1995, three employees of the agency have been dismissed from that employment for making information available.
Clearly, information must be disclosed to the other parent to allow him or her to understand how maintenance liability has been assessed. That information includes, for example, details of the non-resident parent's net income and the relevant qualifying children. Legislation permits, and carefully specifies, such disclosure.
However, the CSA must never disclose a parent's address or any other information that may lead to that person being located. Parents also have a right to refuse to allow a tribunal or court to reveal such details.
That is an important safeguard. It protects the whereabouts of parents, in particular women who may be at risk of abuse from their ex-partners if their address becomes known. I am pleased to say that the CSA has an excellent record in that area. It also reassures parents with care who are treated as applying for child support when they claim benefit, but their whereabouts will remain confidential.
Amendment No. 81 is unnecessary because child support legislation already provides adequate and robust protection for personal information provided by clients to the CSA. The amendment provides protection to parents with care who are treated as applying for child support under section 6 of the 1991 Act. However, the existing legislative safeguards in the 1991 Act prevent unauthorised disclosure of information for all CSA clients, not just those who qualify under section 6.
With those reassurances that we have in place a robust system that has been proved to work, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

9 pm

Mr. Andrew George: I am encouraged by the Minister's response, by the sympathetic and helpful response that I received from each of the three Departments involved indirectly in the case that I raised, and by the fact that an interdepartmental body on domestic violence has been set up to ensure a joined-up approach from Government. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, the Department of Social Security will be involved in that body.
The Minister referred earlier to Mr. Justice Wall who, I understand, following the case to which I referred, will be leading a short inquiry into the treatment of domestic violence cases in the courts. I appreciate that the Government now accept that that is a matter of great concern, and, I hope, if necessary, to push the matter further.
The Ministers response to amendment No. 81 was partially reassuring. It is reassuring that there have been three scalps from the CSA staff as a result of action taken to ensure that confidential information is not divulged. However, I and my hon. Friends are concerned not only with human error on the front line, but with whether the system is sufficiently robust and rigorous.
Given our debate on amendment No. 76, although I am partially reassured by the Minister, we shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 81 in the hope that there will be another opportunity to reflect on both aspects of the matter as raised in amendments Nos. 76 and 81 in another place. On that basis, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Schedule 3

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO CHILD SUPPORT

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 89, line 39, at end insert—

'The Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c.18)

A1.—(1) Section 150A of the Army Act 1955 (enforcement of maintenance assessment by deductions from pay) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (1), (2)(a), (3)(a) (twice) and (4), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(3) In subsection (3) (twice), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

The Air Force Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c.19)

A2.—(1) Section 150A of the Air Force Act 1955 (enforcement of maintenance assessment by deductions from pay) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (1), (2)(a), (3)(a) (twice) and (4), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(3) In subsection (3) (twice), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)

A3.—(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 29 (duration of continuing financial provision orders in favour of children, and age limit on making certain orders in their favour)—



(a) in subsections (5)(a), (7) (three times) and (8)(a), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";
(b) in subsections (5)(a) and (b)(ii) and (6)(b), for "current assessment" there shall be substituted "current calculation";
(c) in subsection (6)(b), for "maintenance assessments" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculations"; and
(d) in subsection (6)(b), for "those assessments" there shall be substituted "those calculations".

(3) In section 31 (variation, discharge, etc., of certain orders for financial relief)—

(a) in subsections (11)(c) and (12)(a) and (c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation"; and
(b) in subsection (11) (twice), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

(4) In section 52 (interpretation), in subsection (1), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 (c.22)

A4.—(1) The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 5 (age limit on making orders for financial provision for children and duration of such orders)—

(a) in subsections (5)(a), (7) (three times) and (8)(a), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";
(b) in subsections (5)(a) and (b)(ii) and (6)(b), for "current assessment" there shall be substituted "current calculation"; and
(c) in subsection (6)(b), for "those assessments" there shall be substituted "those calculations".

(3) In section 20 (variation, revival and revocation of orders for periodical payments)—

(a) in subsections (9A)(c) and (9B)(a) and (c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation"; and
(b) in subsection (9A) (three times), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation".

(4) In section 88 (interpretation), in subsection (1), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.37)

A5.—(1) The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 5 (variation and recall of decrees of aliment), in subsection (1A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(3) In section 7 (agreements about aliment), in subsection (2A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(4) In section 13 (orders for periodical allowance), in subsection (4A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(5) In section 16 (agreements about financial provision), in subsection (3)(d), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(6) In section 27 (interpretation), in subsection (1), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)

A6. In section 281 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (effect of discharge on a bankrupt), in subsection (5)(b), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.18)

A7.—(1) The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 72 (effect of sequestration on diligence against earnings), in subsection (4A), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(3) In section 106 (interpretation), in the definition of "maintenance order", in paragraph (j), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1)

A8.—(1) The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 347B (qualifying maintenance payments)—

(a) in subsections (8) and (9)(a) and (c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";
(b) in subsection (9)(b) and (c), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation"; and
(c) for subsection (11) there shall be substituted—

"(11) In this section "maintenance calculation" means a maintenance calculation made under the Child Support Act 1991 or a maintenance assessment made under the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991."

(3) In section 617 (social security benefits and contributions), in subsection (2)(ae), for "section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995 or under any corresponding enactment" there shall be substituted "any enactment corresponding to section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995".

The Finance Act 1988 (c.39)

A9. In the Finance Act 1988, in each of subsection (5A) of section 36 (annual payments) and subsection (8A) of section 38 (maintenance payments under existing obligations: 1989–90 onwards), for "maintenance assessment made" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation or maintenance assessment made respectively".

The Children Act 1989 (c.41)

A10.—(1) Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (financial provision for children) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3—

(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(a), (7) (three times) and (8)(a), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation";
(b) in sub-paragraph (5)(a) and (b)(ii) and (6)(b), for "current assessment" there shall be substituted "current calculation";
(c) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for "maintenance assessments" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculations"; and
(d) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for "those assessments" there shall be substituted "those calculations".

(3) In paragraph 6—

(a) in sub-paragraph (9) (three times), for "the assessment" there shall be substituted "the calculation"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (9)(c), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".

(4) In paragraph 16(3), for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".'.

No. 50, in page 90, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
', after "any application" there shall be inserted "made or treated as made".'.

No. 51, in page 92, line 35, at end insert—

'The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)

In section 7A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (sharing of functions as regards certain claims and information), in subsection (6)(a)—

(a) after "application" there shall be inserted "(or an application treated as having been made)"; and
(b) for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".'.

No. 52, in page 92, line 40, at end insert—
'(3) Section 24 (which provides for the making of regulations under which compensation could be paid for a reduction in child support maintenance attributable to changes in child support legislation, and which is now spent) shall cease to have effect.

Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 (c.33)

In section 1 of the Prisoners' Earnings Act 1996 (power to make deductions and impose levies), in subsection (4), in paragraph (d) of the definition of "net weekly earnings", for "maintenance assessment" there shall be substituted "maintenance calculation".'.—[Mr. Rooker.]

New Clause 9

EXTENSION OF INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE FOR BEREAVED CARERS

'.—In section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(10) The Secretary of State shall make regulations in respect of persons who cease to be in receipt of invalid care allowance as a result of the death of the person in respect of whose care the allowance has been claimed.

(10A) These regulations shall set the condition for the award to be satisfied for a period of eight weeks from the date on which that person ceased to be in receipt of invalid care allowance.".'.—[Mr. Burstow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is born out of an anxiety that Liberal Democrats share about the adequacy and effectiveness of the state second pension for carers today. Many carers will never benefit from the introduction of the state second pension. The new clause deals with a specific problem that affects carers who undertake caring responsibilities, and tries to ensure that additional money is put in their pockets to improve their lives now.
Approximately 120,000 people are long-term carers, who have been caring for more than five years; 32,000 carers have been caring for more than 10 years. Many of them will not receive any benefit from the state second pension. The new clause would therefore extend the payment of invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of the person who is being cared for.
We are considering bereavement and the way in which we acknowledge the sensitivities around bereavement. The system presents a cliff edge for carers. One day they

have a caring responsibility, the next day the state completely withdraws the benefits that they receive for caring.
I shall explain why we believe that the matter deserves further attention. We want to highlight the problems that bereaved carers suffer. Hon. Members know that the majority of carers receive invalid care allowance for caring for relatives such as children, parents or partners. In the case of the death of a spouse, the new clause would financially help the surviving partner through the bereavement, in some small way.
It could be argued that there are no grounds for doing that and that such a provision would be unusual in the context of our benefit system. However, that is not the case. There is a precedent that applies directly to carers. The carers premium is paid on top of income support to those who are entitled to invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of the person who was cared for. It is more generous than the new clause because it establishes the right to a further eight weeks of payment when a cared-for person has moved into permanent residential care. We argue that the principle of the carers premium, which gives a breathing space to the carer, should apply to invalid care allowance in general.
If the provision worked in the same way as the carers premium, it would cost an additional £5 million per annum. Our proposal is not as generous—although we would like to be more generous—and should therefore cost less.
When such amendments are tabled, Ministers often express anxiety, perhaps understandably, about the constraints that the Government's ancient and rather decrepit information technology systems place on them when the administration of benefits is changed. In Committee, we had an interesting exchange about the number of releases that were being planned to CSA software. That led me to ask a written question to glean more information about releases.
I discovered through the written answer that two releases are planned in the next three years for invalid care allowance. One will deal with the production of restricted order books, which account for the recipient reaching retirement age, or changes to that person's disability living allowance or attendance allowance. That provides an opportunity to tackle another long-standing Liberal Democrat anxiety. Invalid care allowance should probably be extended to people of retirement age who continue to carry a caring burden.
The second release deals with a range of system administrative enhancements. That seems to be a general catch-all that could also apply to the new clause, enabling it to be given effect without requiring an additional release of the necessary software and systems. In that context, I hope that that concern can be overcome.
Our new clause would enable another concern to be addressed. Carers are presented with the fact that their ICA stops on the day that their partner dies. As a result, they have little income and have to go back to the jobcentre to sign on, which presents them with the prospect of the single work-focused gateway and an interview with the advisers who are now in place to help people back to work. Does the House want someone who has suffered a bereavement after many years of caring to face an interview with an undoubtedly well-meaning person who might mistakenly not defer that interview for


a time sufficient to acknowledge the bereavement? The option of paying ICA for a further eight weeks could overcome that concern.
The new clause would make sure that carers are not forced to move straight from the grave side to the jobcentre, which would be wrong. It is affordable, fair and would improve the lot of carers.

Mr. Pickles: I intend to speak for only a few moments, but first I apologise to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for missing the early part of his speech. He did himself a disservice by saying that the proposal would cost £5 million a year. I am not sure that that is correct. I think that it would cost a little less. I may be wrong, but I understand that the carers premium includes a roll-on when a cared-for person goes into permanent residential care. I do not know the precise cost—the Minister may tell us—but I think that it would be less than £5 million.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say implicitly that the Liberal Democrats have come round to the Conservative way of thinking on invalid care allowance policy and ensuring that the rule under which ICA stops being paid at 65 disappears. We welcome that.

Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: Of course. I am only too pleased to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to announce more policies on which he agrees with the Conservatives.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As someone who will undoubtedly have made a great and close study of our previous general election manifesto, he will be aware that we have held the policy position that I annunciated again today for a very long time. We welcome the Conservative party joining us.

Mr. Pickles: Those remarks are not much of a guide as we are used to alternating, yin-yang policy from the Liberal Democrats. I was trying to be nice about their new clause and, despite that provocation, I shall happily go on to be so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our system can sometimes be a little harsh. A lot of benefits stop when one person dies and another is left to sort things out. We all have experience of winding up our parents' estates and people's minds are on all kinds of things at such a distressing time. This relatively modest proposal would provide a breathing space.
I was involved in a discussion in a statutory instrument Committee about the way in which we get bereaved people into the gateway. I was surprised to learn—even given the fact that the payments that we were discussing would end after a year—that those receiving bereavement benefits would enter the gateway so suddenly.
9.15 pm
I think it reasonable for a bereaved person not to have to engage in a single-gateway interview. In most cases, the carers allowance would stop immediately, and the financial circumstances of the bereaved person might well force that person to engage in a work-focused interview without being in an appropriate mental state. I do not believe that the Government want that to happen.
We have considerable sympathy with the new clause. The Government may want to reflect on the possibility of achieving its aim by other means. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam intended his new clause to be, as it were, a probing amendment, but we think it would be advisable to give the Government some time in which to consider the matter.
Genuine problems are experienced by bereaved carers. The close relationship that was involved makes it that much more difficult. Even if the Government do not wish to accept the new clause as it is drafted, they may want to try to relieve the burden experienced by carers in the critical first few months after a bereavement.

Angela Eagle: New clause 9 would extend the period of entitlement for all recipients of invalid care allowance to eight weeks after the death of the person who was cared for, and in respect of whose care the allowance was being paid. I have considerable sympathy with the intention, which is to help a small but vulnerable group of carers who receive ICA for looking after a disabled person who subsequently dies.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make clear the Government's agenda for carers, following publication of the report on the national strategy for carers last year. In his preface to the report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
Carers are among the unsung heroes of British life.
He said that they
should be properly recognised and properly supported.
I suspect that all hon. Members endorse that view.
The national strategy put down a marker by stating that the Government would
keep under review how financial support for carers—including Invalid Care Allowance—can best meet needs—
that is, the needs of carers. A few days later, the report of the royal commission on long-term care suggested that
the system could do more to offer support for carers.
The Government are clearly committed to reviewing the financial support available to carers. In doing that, we must take account of the work being done to prepare our White Paper response to the royal commission's report. I can confirm that financial assistance for carers, including ICA, is being considered carefully. We will of course consult the Carers National Association and other representative groups as and when we have specific proposals to make.

Mr. Burstow: Is the review of the care allowance part of the review that will lead to the White Paper dealing with long-term care, or is it considered a separate matter, subject to a separate report? If there is to be a separate report, when can we expect it to be dealt with here?

Angela Eagle: I am always being asked to give exact dates in this context. As hon. Members will know, to give exact dates is to fall into a trap, because of the practicalities of government and the difficulty of securing agreement before delivering a honed Green or White Paper in a short time. However, the White Paper that responds to the royal commission must be written and developed with that in mind. My assumption is that they are separate documents. As I have said, the ICA itself and


the financial assistance that is given to carers are being looked at. The cut-off date is, by definition, one of the things that we are examining.
I emphasise that the group of carers that the amendment seeks to help is small—a point that the hon. Gentleman made—although none the less deserving of consideration. Bereavement is a universally difficult time for those of us who have experienced it. Inevitably, family finances must be re-examined in many circumstances—for example, with the loss of the disabled person's income. Financial advice, including benefit advice, as well as practical or work-related advice, may have to be sought.
In that context, the ONE process can be helpful. I reconfirm, given the comments by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), that there is a process whereby, if someone is bereaved and they say they could not cope with a work-focused interview, they will be given benefit advice and the interview will be deferred. There may be people in that position who would want such an interview to set some strategic goals. Different people react differently, but deferral is a possibility. That will be sympathetically considered in each individual case through the ONE process.
The amendment may not achieve as much as its supporters hope. There is already protection for many carers whose need is greatest: for example, those on low incomes who have lost a spouse. Carers who receive income support and the carer premium, which is the increase paid specifically for people entitled to ICA, have their benefit adjusted to take into account the loss of that ICA and will continue to receive the benefit, including the carer premium, for eight weeks. In addition, during that eight-week period, they are exempt from the need to be available for, and actively seeking, employment to qualify for income support. That leeway allows them time to adjust and to seek advice.
Where the death is that of a spouse, bereavement benefits are usually paid very promptly: within a few days of the claim. As such payments are made in preference to ICA, an ICA run-on would be of little or no material assistance for those carers.
For those who are most vulnerable and in greatest need, their income is already protected on the death of the disabled person for whom they have been caring, despite the loss of ICA. In practical terms, the amendment would help only those carers whose income is over income support level.
None the less, whether it is a well targeted proposal is a matter of judgment. I hope that I have made it clear that, in broader terms, the Government are strongly aware of the need for adequate financial support for carers. We are aware of the existing commitment to keep that under review in the context of longer-term care issues and the need to address the concerns of carers in the round. In the light of that, it would be difficult, for a number of reasons, to anticipate specific and piecemeal changes at this stage.
We are looking to examine the matter in the round and to take forward a strategy, not to tackle it piecemeal, as the amendment does. I hope that, in the light of those comments, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Miss McIntosh: I make a brief point following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
The Minister has been sympathetic to the amendment. I would be delighted to see it in the Bill in some shape or form, if not exactly as it appears at the moment. The Minister has been generous enough to say that the Government will look at the matter in the round. The amendment has the benefit of reflecting the policy of the official Opposition. It is obviously commendable for that reason. The support would be given only for a limited period and to an easily identifiable group of people.
As the Minister has admitted, the help would come at a time of particular vulnerability and difficulty for those people. It would be most generous if the Government, while not acceding necessarily to the precise words of the amendment, examined the matter in the round and saw fit to continue the level of support in the shape of that bereavement benefit. That would be most welcome.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for supporting the new clause. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly discerned, it was intended to stimulate debate and encourage the Government to put on record their thinking and the direction that they plan to take in modernising—to use their language—the invalid care allowance.
It has long been the view of the Liberal Democrats that the invalid care allowance should undergo a comprehensive reform, becoming a genuine carers' benefit that reflects their needs. The Minister was right to say that it is better to undertake such reforms in a comprehensive way.
Tonight we have focused on a particular concern that was raised in the royal commission report. The considerable sympathy that the Minister expressed is most welcome. However, it is important to recognise that there is a strong need to address financial issues affecting carers. Carers still want to know how long they will have to wait for the Government's definitive proposals to be enacted. That is the key. We are not talking about large sums of money for carers—it is only £39.95—but the savings for the taxpayer and the rest of society are considerable and we need to recognise that.
The new clause is a modest measure with a modest cost and it recognises the value of carers. However, in view of the Minister's generous response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

MANNER OF PAYMENT OF BENEFIT NOT RESTRICTED TO AUTOMATED CREDIT TRANSFER

'.—In section 5(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, at the end of paragraph (i) there is inserted ", but the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to be the only manner of paying a benefit."2.—[Mr. Webb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A large number of hon. Members—representing five political parties—have put their names to new clause 26. For the avoidance of doubt, although the amendment paper lists the most recently added names and those who tabled the amendment, other hon. Members, some of whom are here tonight, have also put their names to the new clause, demonstrating the broad concern around the issue.
The future of the post office network is a matter of concern to all our constituents. The depth of public concern about the threat to the post office network caused by the intended movement of benefit payments to automated credit transfer has stirred communities up and down the land. My regional newspaper, the Western Daily Press, has led the way with a petition that now has more than 2 million signatures and is growing by thousands every day. That campaign has voiced the concerns of people in the west country, but it is now spreading across the country. People are responding because of the affection in which they hold their local post offices.
The new clause would include in the regulations that apply to the payment of benefits the notion that the Government could not require people to receive benefits by means of automated credit transfer. There is a question as to whether that is the Government's intention, and the answer seems to depend on whether one listens to the Department of Social Security or the Department of Trade and Industry. In the autumn of last year the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters saying that by the end of the period 2003–05 all benefits would be paid by ACT. The letter was marked "for publication". Since then, the Government have softened their language a little, saying that there will be no compulsion, yet the Department of Social Security plans to save £400 million. The Department will not save £400 million unless pretty much everyone switches over to ACT. Regardless of whether the word "compulsion" is used, the sums involved imply the expectation that pretty much everyone will receive their money by that means.
New clause 26 seeks to restrain change until we—many other hon. Members and I—have assurances that the post office network will be safe. The critical backdrop to the debate is that the post office network is ebbing away. It has been ebbing away not only since 1 May 1997, but for a decade or two. What is very worrying, however, is that the pace of change is accelerating. In the past decade or two, about 100 post offices have closed each year. In the past couple of years, since the general election—I do not suppose that the two things are necessarily directly related—more than 200 post offices have closed each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) met the Minister for Competitiveness and was told that, this year, there will be no fewer than 500 closures. If that figure is correct, it is horrific, and it certainly demonstrates the urgency of the issue. That many closures would wreak havoc in communities across the land.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend accept that, to some extent, it is academic whether the Government wish to employ some compulsion? If so many post offices have ceased to be viable in rural areas, there is really no access to post offices for many people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I assist the House? As new clause 26 does not deal

with post offices, we should not be talking in detail about post office closures. That issue can be raised in an Adjournment debate or by some other means.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The connection that I am seeking to make—which I hope that you will feel is in order—is that, in the new clause, we are trying to prevent the Government from doing something that they seem to be threatening to do: require benefits to be paid by automated credit transfer. We believe that, if there were such a requirement, it would have a devastating affect on the post office network.

Miss McIntosh: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me in explaining to the one third of my constituents who do not have bank accounts what the impact would be if the Government were to proceed with payment by ACT? Would they perhaps lose out on that payment?

Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady highlights a very important grey area in the Government's proposals. We really do not know what will happen if ACT becomes the norm or compulsory. We do not know what the accounts will look like, or on what basis people will be able to withdraw money.
There is a critical point here. Ministers always say, "Don't worry, you'll still be able to go to a post office to get your money." However, that rather presumes that there will still be a local post office at which to get the money. The nub of the issue is that, if we move to compulsory ACT, it will so undermine the post office network that many of our communities will not have a post office to go to.

Mr. Bercow: Although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Ministers regularly offer the assurance in the House that people will still be able to claim in person, does he agree that communications from both the Benefits Agency and the Royal Mail have given the impression that there will eventually be no alternative to ACT, and that that is the source of grave anxiety for hundreds of thousands of people across the country?

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is grave anxiety. Very often, for benefits recipients, information on whether to choose ACT is presented in a very loaded manner. It is not really a free choice at all.

Mr. Browne: As the hon. Gentleman is explaining the thinking behind new clause 26 and the effect that it may have on poor people, and given his very obvious expertise on social policy, will he share with the House his view on whether the one third of unbanked people—who are denied access to a whole range of services—should be encouraged in proper social policy to have bank accounts and access to the United Kingdom's financial networks?

Mr. Webb: They should have access to financial services of an appropriate nature. My view is that those should be delivered ideally by the post office network. If the amendment is not passed and the Government go for compulsory ACT, that option may be closed, as the post office network may not be there to allow financial inclusion for just those people about whom the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned.
I have conducted a survey in my constituency, and I have the responses here—they can be independently verified, should that be required. I wrote to my sub-post offices on the subject of ACT, and asked what the implications of our failing to get the amendment through tonight would be for their businesses. I asked:
How would it would affect your business if the Government go ahead with plans to pay benefits into bank accounts?
That is an unloaded question, as one would expect. The first response I had was
It would close us down.
Others said that the post office and shop went hand in hand, and that one would not survive without the other on the basis of present turnover. Many sub-post offices depend on benefits transactions; not just the money that they get for handling benefit transactions, but the other business that that brings in. The one depends on the other.

Mr. Field: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not write the press release before he sent out the survey. Did he ask sub-postmasters whether they would favour a system in which the Government moved to ACT, but used some of the substantial savings that taxpayers would receive to make sure that all sub-post offices could run simple banking services? What would he write in the press release before he sent out that survey?

Mr. Webb: I am not convinced that the subject of my press release falls within the scope of the amendment. However, banking is seen as an important adjunct to what post offices do, and measures along the lines proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be valued by the post offices.

Mr. Bercow: You rightly reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are talking not about post offices but about the possibility of compulsory automated credit transfer. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me how many people currently collecting in person—roughly, if not precisely—in the Northavon constituency would be affected in the event that his amendment were not successful?

Mr. Webb: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes such an interest in my constituency. The proportion of new pensioners who opt for ACT is about half, and the proportion is similar for child benefit recipients. However, it is significant that those two benefits are the two most likely to go for ACT. Given a loaded choice, only half the public choose to have those benefits paid through ACT. Only 10 per cent. of income support recipients go for ACT.
A Labour councillor wrote to my local paper to say that I was trying to force people to go to their post offices. This is not about forcing people; that is what we fear the Government are trying to do. We want to give people choice; not a loaded choice or compulsion, but a genuine free choice. If the Government reject the new clause tonight, they will leave open the option of compulsion. If they reject new clause 26—which says that the Government may not force people—the only possible reason is that they do want to force people. They want to leave open the option of forcing people, and that is what we oppose.

Mr. Jim Cousins: It is clear from what he has said that the hon. Gentleman

would be happy to accept the idea of ACT if the Post Office could offer a banking platform. That is not what the new clause says.

Mr. Webb: We are not happy to give the Government carte blanche to go ahead with ACT until we know what will make up for the loss of businesses that post offices will face.

Mr. Rooker: I do not want to provoke the hon. Gentleman, who has told us about his survey of post offices. However, what about his constituents? In his constituency last week, 20 people moved to ACT; another 20 will do the same this week. That is what is happening in every constituency, as it is the choice that people are making. Does he think that they are wrong, and would he like to stop them? Does he think that they should not have the right to make that decision?

Mr. Webb: I recently addressed a meeting of the Bristol branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, attended by about 60 or 70 angry people. They told me that people were confused by the communications that they receive from the Benefits Agency and from other bodies, and did not understand that they had a choice. Sometimes people who run sub-post offices are told by people whom they do not see very often that they have opted to get their money through their bank account. On being asked why, they say that they have received a letter from the Government saying that they had to.
The Minister must remember that we are talking about people who are not very sophisticated financially.

Mr. Rooker: Come off it.

Mr. Webb: The Minister says that, but in a recent Adjournment debate he accused sub-postmasters of telling porkies. That is what he said and it is on the record.

Mr. Rooker: Well, they did.

Mr. Webb: In a recent Question Time on this issue the Government accused Liberal Democrats of scaremongering. That is not what we are doing. The rate of closure of sub-post offices is accelerating every week.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me in, and I will not intervene again. Is he seriously saying that pensioners—unknowingly and through confusion—choose to get their pensions four weeks in arrears, rather than every week? That delay happens when people move to ACT. Does he maintain that pensioners—all unknowing—say, "Oh, yes, I'll wait four weeks and get my money in arrears through the bank, but I don't understand why I can't continue to have it weekly."? That is abject nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Webb: Today, the Minister's Department has sent out 2 million letters to pensioners.

Mr. Rooker: No, it has not done so yet.

Mr. Webb: But it is planning to. Why are those letters being sent? Because pensioners are not claiming one of


their entitlements under the benefits system. One of the reasons for that is the complexity that they encounter in the system.
The form needed for transfer to ACT has a big blank space for bank details. The Minister has just said that no pensioners receiving the form will think that they are being instructed to fill in that space, but I assure him that they do think that, and that they fill in the space and send off the form.
I offer the Minister a challenge. If I can come up with the name and address of someone who has been misled in that way by the Government—even if not deliberately—will the Minister publicly apologise for accusing me of misleading the House on this matter? I should be happy to give way if the Minister wants to respond to that challenge.
We want to protect vital community facilities and to give people choice. The Minister asked whether we considered that those who opted for ACT were wrong to do so, but that option is absolutely fine for those who prefer it. However, we are interested in the people who do not mind too much whether their payments go into a bank account or are made through the post office. If the Government force people to move to automated credit transfer, there will be a critical mass that will make post offices unviable.
9.45 pm
We are most concerned about pensioners and disabled people, for whom the post office is often a lifeline. If they do not turn up, the postmaster or postmistress will know. They are thereby part of the community.
I happened to glance at the Evening Standard tonight in the Tea Room to see what the Government are doing for pensioners. I saw the headline "Ministers want trendy name for pensioners". The article says:
Some of Whitehall's finest minds are working on the problem, while the Government is also seeking outside help to come up with the new title.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a new clause before us, and the hon. Gentleman should be speaking to it.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are trying to defend Britain's pensioners, considering that we have a Government who come up with nonsense like giving them 75p. We are tabling the new clause to protect the network of post offices that all our constituents have told us they value. I hope that the new clause will have the support of the House.

Mr. Field: The new clause will test whether political parties can see beyond the next press release and whether they are serious about the concern expressed on both sides of the House about the future of our sub-post office system.
The House has not yet had a lobby from outside which puts the fear of God into Members of Parliament representing marginal constituencies. Next month, when the sub-postmasters and postmistresses come to town, it is likely that some people may not feel that the result of the next election is quite as certain as they thought.
We want the Government to behave as constructively as possible. Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the future of our sub-post offices, not

only because of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) about the effect on vulnerable groups, but because of the key role that those post offices play in keeping local communities together. Those local communities are as real in Birkenhead, which is formed of six villages, as they are in more traditional country areas.
The test is how to use our voices—perhaps not our votes—to further that goal tonight. I agree that, if we divide the House, there may be press releases in it for some people. We must judge whether, if we accept the new clause on the method of payments, we will secure the long-term future of our post offices more effectively. As we know, the Bill will go to another place, and it is inconceivable that an amendment such as this will not be moved there, probably successfully. By then, this Parliament will have been subjected to its first serious lobby. Some of my colleagues may realise for the first time that they may not have an automatic ticket back to the House of Commons after the next election. They may be more anxious to preserve their sub-post offices than they are at present.
I hope that the aim is not merely to preserve the method of payment. I had responsibility for the benefit card for 14 weeks, as I had for so many other issues in the Department of Social Security. It seemed that such gains would come from automated credit transfer that we should think positively about it. Because the gains were so great, it also seemed that we, as taxpayers, should put aside some of those savings to secure the future of sub-post offices, not merely by subsidies, but by ensuring that they were in a position to offer simple banking services. If they could offer those services, not only would they be able to participate in an ACT system, they could take on a role from which banks are progressively withdrawing in all our communities.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does it not amount to the fact that the Government have to convince the House—Labour Members more than Opposition Members, perhaps—that there is a real prospect that banks will open facilities for elderly people, who will want them only to receive their pensions and make disbursements at post offices? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's experience, which spans a period far longer than 14 weeks, will he tell us whether there is any realistic prospect that banks will be prepared to do that unless compelled to do so by the Government? Does he think the Government will do that? That is the nub of the debate.

Mr. Field: I am not sure whether that is the nub of the debate, given the substance of the new clause. I am not against Governments trying to compel people but, if one takes that course, it is good to ensure that one can succeed. Two banks in Birkenhead have announced their closure. We could compel banks to provide certain services but, if they are not there, we are dealing only with theoretical circumstances.
I appeal to Opposition Members to make their voices heard as clearly as possible on the new clause. The Bill is only part of the way through its proceedings; it will go to another place. The House will shortly receive one of the more effective lobbies of this Parliament. If the other place tabled an amendment, the Government would have to accept it or make alternative proposals.
Our aim is genuinely not to score off the Government with press releases and so on but to win some advances for the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. The


best way to do that is to convince the Government that we support the move to ACT, provided that some of the considerable gains that it will bring to taxpayers will be invested in our sub-post offices so that they can offer simple banking services. In that way, we shall keep the largest possible number of our sub-post offices; and financial exclusion, which now rightly seems to concern both sides of the House, will be tackled more effectively.
I realise that to follow the course that I advocate would be to deny some of us press releases. However, we may be denied them only for a few weeks, because, when we consider the Bill on its return from another place, we may be able to issue press releases stating that we have secured real advances for our poorest constituents, rather than that the Government have failed to accept a new clause.
I appeal to hon. Members: let us make our points as effectively as possible. Let us convince the Government that many of us may go into the Lobby against them on another occasion, if we do not obtain the changes that we want. Let that significant lobby of Parliament work on those with marginal constituencies. Let us return to the measure when the Government have had a chance to introduce more constructive provisions.

Mr. Pickles: You rightly ruled that this matter relates to automatic credit transfer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, ACT also relates to post offices and to the provision of banking services in various areas. To avoid any doubt, I declare an interest. My wife works for Barclays bank, although I suspect that my remarks will not endear her to the board.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), although I lost count of the number of times that he told us about press releases and about what the Opposition are supposed to do tonight. I have always held the old-fashioned view that such nuances of political life as whether one presses a matter to a vote are among the few things best conducted by consenting adults in private. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman chose to tell us with a megaphone what we are supposed to be doing. Believe me, we have worked out the tactics for ourselves. Whatever we, along with other hon. Members, decide to do about the Liberal Democrats' new clause, it will be in the best interests of ensuring that the Government have plenty of time to reflect on this important issue.
I am a little concerned because we are beginning to polarise into two groups. There are those who say that the matter is about post offices, and those on the sunlit upland, moving towards automatic credit transfer. The Prime Minister tells us of all the savings that are to be made.

Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend give way on the point concerning the Prime Minister?

Mr. Pickles: I knew that I would provoke my hon. Friend by saying the words "Prime Minister".

Mr. Swayne: This afternoon, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government had inherited the proposals from the previous Administration. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) say on the record in the House that the

proposals were put to him but that he rejected them because he believed that the savings were illusory and that the social costs were far too great.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend's recollection is absolutely correct. I caught only the latter part of Prime Minister's Question Time today, but it was pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman was fairly flustered. I suppose that he can be forgiven for saying such a thing. I am sure that he will be at the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity tomorrow to correct it. My hon. Friend is right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rejected the idea—I know this because I have had discussions with him—because of the problems that it would cause rural post offices.
We know that, despite the steady trudge of the 20 people a week in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) who have changed to automatic credit transfer—I hope that, before the debate is over, the Minister of State will name them, because we would like to know who they are—only one in 10 pensioners have opted for ACT and, even among new pensioners, only one in three have done so.
The rather glib statement that simple banking services will cure everything concerns me. Frankly, they will not. Simple banking services will not meet the needs of people who draw pensions or benefits. Let us look briefly at some of the problems. We know that a large number of recipients of pensions and benefits are described as the "unbanked". We know that part of the Cruickshank report, to which my hon. Friends have alluded, may contain a deal under which banks will provide services for everybody.
If that occurs, we shall need to consider several practical things. First, help in understanding the operation of a bank account, particularly the management of it and the withdrawal of cash, will need to be offered. Anybody who doubts that cannot have an accurate recollection of their constituency surgeries. I have had to deal with a relatively elderly and confused person who had never had a bank account and who was dreadfully worried about how ACT would operate and whether it would result in debt. Some serious thought must be given to offering such people assistance. The obstacle is not insurmountable, but it will remain an obstacle unless we are able to do something about it.
Quite a number of people have joint bank accounts. Will the money transferred reach the people for whom the benefit is intended? We debated earlier the problems of transfer of money from a parent with care to a child. There is a particular problem concerning accounts shared by those who are not husband and wife, which we need to address.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Pickles: Will bank charges be imposed? Will people's pensions and benefits be eroded by bank charges? Will there be an overdraft facility on the bank charges and will benefit payments merely go towards reducing people's debts to the banks? What will happen if the payments of account holders infringe their agreements with the banks? What will happen if individuals do not qualify for a bank account or choose not to have one? We have to consider such questions if automated credit transfer is to be achieved.
Offering simple banking services will not in itself solve the problems of post offices. There must be a place where not only can people receive payments, but sums can be paid in. I had a discussion with one of my local sub-postmasters who told me about ACT. He said that he had noticed a trend and that people of 65 would use ACT. However, as they got older and moved into their 80s, they reverted to being paid over the counter. That sounds bizarre. Why should they do that? The answer is that they are frailer; they no longer feel competent to drive a motor car; journeys into town are expensive; and they feel safer and more secure going to the local post office to receive payments rather than receiving them through their bank account. It is easier to receive payments over the counter.
The Prime Minister thought—he may still—that ACT was a good idea. He recently announced that the Post Office would install 3,000 cashpoints in villages around the UK in co-operation with the high street banks and building societies; and that the cashpoints may be Post Office branded but will give people access to money and services from a number of different banks. I suppose that we should believe press reports. According to a report in The Daily Telegraph on 9 January—if it is in The Daily Telegraph, it must be true—the Post Office is now in secret talks with a series of Britain's top lenders in an attempt to win support for the plan and hopes not to charge customers a fee for using its cash machines unless it is forced to do so with the banks. Given the backdrop of what has happened in recent weeks, I am not entirely happy with the idea of a person's hard-earned pension money being paid out to the banks by way of cash transfer
The hon. Member for Northavon referred to the additional pension that will be received, so would it not be truly ironic if that were eaten up by the charges of the major high street banks to ensure that a person could withdraw cash?

Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is attacking the banks.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is living in a time warp; he says that the Tories are attacking the banks. He has perhaps never understood that the Tory party is on the side of pensioners receiving a fair deal. I have obviously stirred him up, and it is nice to know that he has a view on things. I look forward to his contribution, which I am sure will be eloquent.
We have received advice from Geoffrey Leigh, who is the development manager with the Norfolk Rural Community Council and a man of some importance. He says:
I cannot see how many of these cash points will end up in villages. And it doesn't help with many of the lower-income people in rural areas who don't have a bank account. Post offices with these will need additional security. It may make life worse for them. The Government has failed to get to grips with problems faced by rural communities.

He is absolutely right.
If the Prime Minister is to succeed in getting those 3,000 cashpoints put in, he will need post offices in which to install them. As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the rate of closure of post offices has accelerated. In 1993–94, sadly, 59 post offices closed; in 1995–96, the figure was 65; in 1997–98, 238 closed, and in 1999–2000, 232 closed. The hon. Gentleman said that this year the figure is likely to be 500. It seems that cash machines will be installed at the rate at which post offices are closing.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was a little controversy a few moments ago about the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)? Is my hon. Friend interested to learn that on 15 February, on Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill, at column 825 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that he had received advice about the damaging effect of the compulsory payment of benefits into bank accounts and accordingly rejected the silly proposal that the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has inadvisedly accepted?

Mr. Pickles: Of course I remember that point in my speech: I would have appalling short-term memory problems if I had not retained that information. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has put on record exactly what the position was, and no doubt when the Prime Minister reads my hon. Friend's contribution over his cornflakes, he will say, "I must get to the House of Commons as soon as possible."

Mr. Field: Where is he?

Mr. Pickles: Where is the Prime Minister? Perhaps the Whip should go and summon him here now, but that would be an overreaction; tomorrow will be early enough for him to give the necessary apology.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we dwell on this matter, we will be straying from the new clause.

Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had wrung just about all the possible humour out of that point.
We have serious problems that will not be solved by the short-term fix of simple banking services. In this highly competitive world, major high street banks will not be worried about providing simple banking services. I support the new clause.

Mr. David Drew: I cannot echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), but this is an important debate, and although it concerns a particular new clause, it is one of a series of debates about the future of the Post Office. Although I can support the aims of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I am not sure that the new clause is the appropriate means of achieving them because it has not been thought through.
I took note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, and of course this debate is on-going in the sense that automated credit transfer is not yet assured because the technology being installed in sub-post offices must be proved to be not only economically viable but technologically capable.
More important, I am worried about the important signals that the new clause would give out. First, it would send a signal to sub-postmasters and mistresses who are thinking about the future of their business. The most worrying aspect of the debate is that people's businesses are being put in jeopardy by loose talk. We are failing to give people confidence in their future. Those people have a future: every Member of Parliament believes that the national network is important; we are arguing about how to secure it, not whether to do so.
Negotiations are—or should be—taking place between the Post Office and the banks. That is where the arguments have to take place. The amendment worries me because it sends a signal to them to lay off, step back and procrastinate. When I meet the managing director of Post Office Counters Ltd. tomorrow, I shall ask him about some of the worrying rumours that I have heard. I shall ask him what negotiations he is engaged in, which banks he is talking to and what progress is being made toward the solution. Allowing people to delay for the next year or even longer will result in more sub-post offices being lost, along with confidence in the network, and that is the very thing we are trying to avoid. That is what worries me about the amendment. I can will the ends, but the means it employs strike me as counter-productive and potentially dangerous.
We are faced with two starkly contrasting options: adopt ACT, or leave things as they are. However, there is a third way, which is the inclusion of the smart card. We take no lectures from the official Opposition, who managed to make a complete hash of the Horizon system; it took years to get it up and running, then the swipe card had to be withdrawn because it never worked properly. We know that the smart card provides a potential answer, but the question is, who will pay for it? It cannot be paid for in full by any one party; a combination of different interests will be required.
I am worried about the outcome if we allow negotiations not to take place and we do not admit the potential of ACT and smart card technology. I am told that that technology is a killer application, which can be utilised, not only by the Benefits Agency, the Department of Social Security and local councils, but by other bodies who want people to have the opportunity to make payments through and into the postal network and sub-post offices. If we give any signal that those negotiations should not be conducted with the greatest urgency, we shall rue the day.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution to the debate, for which I am grateful. He appears to be saying that a saving made by the Department of Social Security should be spent, in part, on a matter that is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. Has he made any representations to the Department of Social Security, which thinks that it will save £400 million, that the money should come out of its departmental budget? Does he think that the Department would let go of the money?

Mr. Drew: That is the nature of the debate and it is what I expect to happen if we achieve joined-up thinking and joined-up action. We still await the report of the

performance and innovation unit, which will consider in a cross-departmental context the whole issue of generating a future for sub-post offices. Now is not the time for the new clause. There is to be a lobby in a couple of weeks' time and people are worried now—they have every reason to worry, given that post offices are closing because of fears about their future viability. However, the new clause does not set out the way forward.
We need measured, proper negotiations between the Post Office and other parties, including the Government. Only that process can produce the correct outcome whereby the network survives and benefits are paid in the appropriate form. That means giving people a choice—the Government have always said that choice is paramount. We must allow matters to take their natural course. That is why the new clause is premature and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Nicholls: The new clause is extremely well targeted. It has enabled us to concentrate on an issue that to date has not been the subject of a satisfactory answer from the Minister. The Government's position throughout is that we are engaging in a completely synthetic argument, that there is no problem and that after 2003 people will still be able to collect their benefits in cash from sub-post offices. The Minister of State wrote to me recently making exactly that point. It is one of those statements that politicians like and it is true as far as it goes, but it does not tell the whole story.
Yes, people will be able to continue to take their benefits in cash after 2003, but only if they have a bank account. Lest anybody be in any doubt, it is worth while considering the literature that the Government have issued. It may be that fashions have changed over the past two years or so, but when I was in government I insisted on seeing the documentation that was going out in my areas of responsibility. I wanted to know whether it would give a misleading view of Government policy on the one hand and what I intended on the other. I expected to see that documentation in my red box. Those who doubt the impression that people have been given should read the literature that is being sent to the public. There is not the slightest doubt that individuals must be extremely cute to realise that at times they are being given a choice.
The documents to which I shall refer are deliberately calculated to deceive. I know that and I recognise them. I am a lawyer, and I am paid to draft documents that are calculated to deceive. I see other lawyers on the Government Benches nodding. I am prepared to give due credit to those who drafted the documents to which I shall refer. They are people who are capable of deceit of a high order.
Despite the fact that the Opposition Whip said that he wanted a passionate and prolix speech, I shall not try you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by delivering one. Instead, I shall refer to a document which states:
Have your pension paid straight to your account.
That is the opening headline. I will read not the entire document but the following paragraph. It reads:
Wherever you are you can draw your pension from any branch of your bank, building society or the post office if you have a Girobank or National Savings bank account. You don't have to make special arrangements if you are away from home for a few weeks visiting family or friends … And it's easier to get your pension abroad.


The key point is that someone can go to any branch of his bank, building society or the Post Office if he has a Girobank or National Savings bank account.
People are sent a form if they are applying for income support. It reads:
You can choose where to have your income support paid. We can arrange to pay your money straight into a bank or building society account. Or we can arrange for you to get your money at the post office, either by direct payment into a Girobank or National Savings bank account or by order book. Please read these notes before you decide which option you want to choose.
We then go into
Payment straight into an account.
The next form relates to those who are coming up for a retirement pension. The relevant pension reads:
Where do you want to be paid—you can choose.
I said that this was deceit of a high order, and indeed it is. The form states:
You can choose where you want your Retirement Pension to be paid. We can arrange to pay your money straight into a bank or building society account. Or we can arrange for you to get your money at the post office, either by payment straight into a GIRO account or National Savings Bank account, or in cash by order book or Payment Card.
There are more of these documents, and they all say the same thing. They are designed to tell the individual the accounts into which the money can be paid.

Mr. Rooker: Obviously the hon. Gentleman's quotes are correct. Is he implying that the language in the documents that he has quoted has changed since 1 May 1997?

Mr. Nicholls: I shall move on to that.
The Government's line used to be, "We are better than you." Now we have someone of the Minister of State's reputation—the great progenitor of the Rooker-Wise amendment during those high moral days—reduced to thinking that he can hide behind the statement, "You're no better than we are." I shall deal with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
When the forms refer to the various accounts into which benefits can be paid, the Girobank sounds like a nice, homely account, but these days the Girobank is a current account run by the Alliance and Leicester bank. It is a bank account that comes with a cash card and a cheque book. Will such a bank, of its own free will, as an exercise in philanthropy, extend banking facilities to elderly people who want such facilities for the sole purpose of collecting their state pension and receiving it in cash? If the Minister of State or any other Labour Member thinks that banks behave in that way, three years of government should have disabused them of their naiveté
The documents refer lovingly and cosily to the Girobank, but that will not work. They also refer to the National Savings bank. That is very clever indeed. Although I do not pretend that I have carried out a survey, as a member of the Liberal party would, I have spoken to the constituents who brought me these forms. A number of people thought that the National Savings bank was like the old Post Office book account, which no longer exists.
When the forms tell people that they can take their money through the National Savings bank account, that is just about correct, but only if they have an investment

account with the National Savings bank. With an investment account, people can have their money paid in in an automated way. The problem is that they must then give four weeks' notice of their intention to draw it out.
Does anyone believe that elderly people, who are wholly dependent on state benefits and have never had a bank account in their life, will find it practical to open an investment account with the National Savings bank and then give notice in that way? It does not begin to stack up.
The documents are deliberately calculated to make people think that they have no alternative. We need to hear from the Minister tonight either that I am wrong, that he has been in contact with the Alliance and Leicester, and that it has assured him that it will be delighted to extend free banking facilities to the range of people in question, or that I am factually wrong and that it is possible to use an investment account at the National Savings bank in that way.
If that is the case, we need to hear about it because, as the Minister well knows, the ordinary account operated by the National Savings bank is a manual-based account. There is no way that money can be automated into it. The Minister knows that, because he has been briefed and he is an honest man. His honesty may be partial at times, but that is politics.
The Minister knows that the accounts mentioned will not be suitable vehicles for dealing with money. What does he intend to do? Either he must say—which even he will find it hard to do with a straight face—that there is a real prospect that, out of kindness, the banking industry will make facilities available to people who are on the poverty line, or he must say that the Government will compel them to do so.
I do not believe that, but it is not my problem—I am not a Minister any more. The Minister will have to come to the Dispatch Box and say that he will compel banks to do that, or that he believes that they will do so of their own accord. If he does not, there is a great, big lacuna in his argument.
In the Minister's letter to me, he states that after 2003 people will be able to take their money in cash. If he says that, he will know that that is a version of events which is incompatible with the truth. That is the politest way that I can put it.

Mr. Leigh: All the Minister has to say in answer to my hon. Friend is that people will be able to take cash at the post office, with no cost to themselves. That is the end of the argument, is it not?

Mr. Nicholls: I am not sure that I understood my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is the end of the argument. If people are to be able to take cash, they must continue to take cash from the post office, and the present arrangements must stay, but that is not what the Government are offering. The Government are saying that people can take cash, provided that they have an account through which to do so. That simply is not correct.
I want to make two further points, one of which has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). I heard the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today do what he so often does. He says, "I can't help it. The Tories did this, and I must carry on doing it." He suggested that the arrangements proposed were what the previous


Conservative Government were in the business of doing. That is simply not true. It is not a matter of argument or of opinion. It is an absolute matter of fact. The Conservative Government intended to use swipe-card technology, but the Government abandoned that because of the job losses that it would have caused in the public sector.
When I heard the Prime Minister today I wondered how one could accurately describe what he had said in the Chamber, but I decided that it simply could not be done; it would be unparliamentary. When I returned to my office still seething, two messages were waiting for me from sub-postmasters in my constituency saying, "Did you hear what the Prime Minister said today? It was an absolute"—as I say, I do not want to dwell on that at any great length.
It has been suggested that the solution may be for banks to put cash points in sub-post offices. The figure of 3,000 has been mentioned, but what about the other 15,000 sub-post offices? Are we really expected to believe that banks will put cash points into other people's private premises when a business might collapse? Independent businesses can become insolvent for all sorts of reasons not related to this. For example, a sub-postmaster might die. It just is not commercially viable. The idea that that will happen is simply not true.
The Minister, as so often, will have got the tactics right. We want to hear no more nonsense about how the present arrangements will enable people after 2003 to obtain their money in cash. Tonight he must say that he, by force if necessary, will provide such facilities, or that the banks have privately assured him that they will do so. I just do not see it happening.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the date that the leaflet that he described as being deceitful was drafted and approved? If it is the same leaflet as I have in my hand, entitled, "Have your pension paid straight to your account", it was last revised in November 1996, when his party was in government.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman digs a nice big hole and then throws himself into it. There is no doubt that at one stage the Conservative Government were thinking of going down this road and not using swipe-card technology, which they subsequently decided to adopt. That Government did what any decent Government would do; they listened to frail and vulnerable people who said that that would not work.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's first intervention and, if he cannot contain himself, I shall give him another shot at it.
I was told by those who gave me the form that I have quoted from today that it is still current. If the hon. Gentleman has other forms which say something entirely different, he had better give them to his right hon. Friend the Minister now, because that would be the best piece of news that his right hon. Friend could hear this evening.

Mr. Browne: I realise that most of us want to get home tonight, but I cannot possibly allow the hon. Gentleman to change his argument from the argument that he so

confidently and articulately set out before the House when he was the only one who had one of these leaflets. He said that the leaflet's language was deceitful and he accused the Government of producing and circulating that leaflet. He was in government when the leaflet was drafted and circulated. His Government were responsible for the deceitful language, and it has not been changed since.

Mr. Nicholls: I must have spoken too quickly. I am sorry. The Labour party is now in government. [Interruption.] The penny has dropped. The Government are now responsible for the forms that they distribute. Let us be clear that the policy that the Government are trying to railroad through was not the Conservative Government's policy, which was to use swipe-card technology which would have dealt with the matter.
The fact is that, throughout Britain, our constituents have been receiving letters from the Minister saying that there will be no problem and that they can continue to get their money in cash. That simply is not true. If the Minister is to retain any credibility in the matter, he will have to explain to the House tonight how he will get out of a jam which is entirely of the Government's making.

Miss McIntosh: I want to make a brief point, which arises from the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and those of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The new clause deals with choice, which several hon. Members' speeches have covered this evening.
Consultations that I have held on the Bill with constituents in the Vale of York who receive the sort of benefit that we are discussing through CSA provisions show that they want to retain the choice that is currently available. That does not detract from the Minister's earlier comments about Labour Members' constituents, who may choose to change to automated credit transfer payments in a good-will gesture to the Government to whom they owe their allegiance.
A third of constituents in the Vale of York choose not to have a bank account. They have never had a bank account and they do not wish to have one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) makes a point about the 40 per cent. of my constituents who fall into a different category and choose to have a bank account. However, that choice has been taken from them. The speed with which bank branches have closed in the past two and a half years is disgraceful. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take that up with the usual channels from a non-sedentary position. He is in a privileged position if he wishes to do that.
It is no laughing matter, and it causes anxiety to those who live in villages in the Vale of York, especially people who live in towns such as Bedale and Easingwold, where there is not just one bank but a choice of banks. That choice may disappear.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend's constituents, like mine, have probably received a form on retirement pensions called BR1, which was revised in June 1999 and gave


them the impression that they had to accept that their money would be paid into an account through automated credit transfer.

Miss McIntosh: That is a helpful comment, which is worth placing on record. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making it.
I want to respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead by saying that most Opposition Members have been in regular contact with our sub-post offices in the past two and a half years. We have nothing to fear from a mass lobby, which we would welcome.

Mr. Field: I shall learn the lesson about walking around in hobnailed boots from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman who usually walks around the Chamber so gently. I suggested that it was the views not of Opposition Members but of Labour Members that were important tonight.

Miss McIntosh: I could not agree more. The right hon. Gentleman's comments this evening have been courageous. I simply want to underline the fact that the Minister should take account of the fact that consultations have taken place and that if the Government had been more mindful of people's anxieties, they would not face a mass lobby.
I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Northavon about the future of the post office network, but I want simply to place on record that the majority of my constituents do not wish to move to automated credit transfer as the only way in which they can receive benefit. They would like to retain the current arrangements, whether they are with a bank in a market town or with remaining sub-post offices.

Mr. Rooker: I apologise for the delay in rising; I thought that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) wanted to contribute and I did not want to deprive anyone of the opportunity to speak.
I shall do my best to answer the debate. There will be some shortcomings in my response, and I shall not be able to answer all the points because not all the decisions have been made. I have to be as open as possible.

Mr. Pickles: Tell us now.

Mr. Rooker: No, that is not possible. It does not work like that.
I want to get a couple of points on the record. I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) the figure of 20 people a week changing to automated credit transfer. That was referred to, in her graceful way, by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), when she said that the change might be a good-will gesture to Labour Members. How did I get that figure? The reality is that every week, in every one of our constituencies, 20 people change to ACT. [Interruption.] There are not 600,000 members of the Labour party.

Mr. Leigh: People choose to make that change. So what?

Mr. Rooker: That is my point. People make that choice voluntarily, either as new beneficiaries of child support

after the birth of a child or as new pensioners. Others swap from current weekly payment, for whatever reason. There is a move to ACT, on a pretty vast scale, but it is unplanned and unmanaged.
I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I say to him honestly and sincerely that, when I asked my question, I thought that he was about to assert that he had discovered a change in the language or the terminology. I thought that I would have to answer an allegation, but he did not make one. I know that the language has not changed since May 1997.
We had difficulty last year over child benefit, which has always been paid every four weeks. Exceptions allow it to be paid weekly, but it was thought that too many people were receiving it on those terms instead of returning to a four-weekly payment after their need changed. I genuinely was not making a cheap point against the hon. Gentleman, his Government or his former ministerial role. However, he laboured the point about the language in the leaflets and the forms, and I thought that he was about to make an assertion.

Mr. Nicholls: My point is that the policy has changed and the language has not. The Minister has been writing letters implying that people will be able to get their benefits in cash from post offices after 2003. There is nothing wrong with writing letters, but people will be able to get their benefits in cash only if they have a bank account. It is unrealistic to expect that, on the evidence, unless the Government or the banks take action to make them open accounts. That is the simple point.

Mr. Rooker: I promise to address that important matter.
I have prepared statements to make because I want to get some remarks on the record. The hon. Member for Teignbridge laboured the point on the shortcomings of national savings accounts, although I accept everything that he said. Some of the manual books are ridiculous—they are from the ration book era—and the technology has not caught up. However, he did not mention the Co-op bank for a start. It does not have many branches, but it has hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of customers who operate successfully. I declare an interest. After Black Wednesday, when my bank speculated with the currency, I moved to the Co-op bank. I left after 33 years and my bank was so concerned about customers withdrawing standing orders and direct debits—I did all that myself—that it never once said, "By the way, it looks as though you have left us after 33 years. Have we done anything to upset you?" I was just a cog in the wheel. Lloyds bank did not give a tinker's cuss about the loss of a customer.

Mr. Pickles: It does now.

Mr. Rooker: That is right, but here is the other side of that coin, as I want to strike a balance and be fair. The hon. Member for Teignbridge laboured the point about national savings, but customers of Lloyds TSB and the Co-op can cash cheques and have full access at the post office. That is an important point to put on the record.

Mr. Leigh: This is a key question for pensioners. After 2003, will pensioners be able to go to their post office and draw their pension without facing bank charges?

Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that later, but I do not want to avoid answering the question. That is our


intention—which is as near to a yes as could be provided. We intend that pensioners will be able to obtain their cash at post offices without incurring charges. We do not want the banks to take money out of the pensions of people who are a bit overdrawn, for instance.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that only one in 10 pensioners had opted for ACT. In fact, one in three new pensioners opts for it. According to figures issued in November last year, 35 per cent. of the Department's customers were paid by that method, 50 per cent. of new retirement pensioners chose it, and 54 per cent. of new child benefit customers chose it. I do not have all the figures with me, but I know that when I check I shall be able to confirm that 10 per cent. of income support recipients chose it.
I believe that income support is the latest benefit that can be claimed through ACT. When I dealt with a member of my family's circumstances back in the early 1990s, I had to go to the post office to claim the pension; it could not be paid into the bank, because income support was involved. In the last three or four years, however, I have dealt with the affairs of a friend whose income support was paid into the bank. Anyway, one in 10 income support recipients opts for ACT.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that people did not realise that they had a choice. If he can find such a pensioner, I shall certainly acknowledge that he or she was misled, although pensioners can of course return to a weekly arrangement. I find it unbelievable that someone—probably confused, perhaps without much of a cash flow, perhaps without many savings, perhaps without two halfpennies to rub together—would say, "I will wait four weeks to have my pension in the bank, although I could claim it weekly at the post office".

Mr. Peter Bradley: Is not one of the reasons for the number of confused people—especially pensioners and other vulnerable individuals, and especially in the south-west—the fact that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have pursued a scurrilous scaremongering campaign in regard to the proposals for the Post Office? Will my right hon. Friend join me in asking them to support the Government's effort to convey the correct information to pensioners, so that they can feel secure about their future?

Mr. Rooker: The issue of choice is important. We recently provided all sub-postmasters with two leaflets explaining the system of payments of benefits and pensions, entitled "You Have A Choice", in letters an inch high—I am old-fashioned; I was brought up on "tenths of a thou" in the factories where I worked. Some sub-postmasters, however, refuse to display the leaflets that explain that pensions can be paid through the bank or by them, across the counter. We must have a mature and adult debate about this, because there is a serious issue at stake, affecting both the future of the post office network and the choice that people have.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may remember, as I do, the last big rally and lobby of the House by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, in about 1981 in Westminster Hall. Most hon. Members who are present now probably were

not here then. I was an Opposition Front Bencher at the time. There may have been a few such rallies since, but the problems that were raised then—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: You were fomenting them.

Mr. Rooker: No, I was not!
My noble Friend Lord Orme and I were in Westminster Hall. I had never experienced a lobby or rally like it. I can honestly say that I have not experienced one like it since, so I am well aware of the—

Mr. Kirkwood: Newcastle will not be far enough away.

Mr. Rooker: My diary had me on ministerial business in Newcastle on 12 April, but I have insisted on being at the rally in London. I will have my own constituents coming to see me on that day. It is important to be in London.
10.45 pm
There is an important issue to be dealt with, which has been touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must take it on board.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: I shall make a little progress and then I should be happy to give way.
New clause 26 is designed to retain people's current choice as to method of payment—it applies to the year after, really, irrespective of circumstances. We have announced that automatic credit transfer will be the norm for paying benefits from 2003. I cannot say in March 2000 what the rules and procedures will be. It is not possible. It will probably take the best part of the rest of this year before the negotiations are completed—they may go a little into next year—between the Benefits Agency and the Post Office, and between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office.
There is much detail to go into, some of which I have alluded to. For example, we pay 1 million emergency payments a year. Emergency payments are emergency payments; the cash is needed. It may not be possible for ACT to be even a runner for such payments. That must be taken account of.
Some people will never be able to have, or to run, a bank account. The figure is a lot smaller than the percentage of people who do not have a bank account now, but some people are not allowed by law to operate a bank account. Clearly, we must take all that into account before we make those changes.

Mr. Pickles: Could the right hon. Gentleman help us? He says that he is in negotiation on this issue. Given that it is cross-departmental, is he doing the negotiation, or is the Department for Education and Employment doing it?

Mr. Rooker: No. The Department of Trade and Industry is the sponsoring Department for the Post Office. It is leading on the Horizon project. A departmental issue


is at stake, but we want some joined-up government, because it is obviously cross-departmental, as the hon. Gentleman implied.
The transfer to ACT is planned to begin in 2003 and to be completed by 2005. However, those who wish to continue to collect their cash at post offices will still be able to do so before and after the change in 2003.

Mr. Nicholls: Whether or not they have a bank account of their own?

Mr. Rooker: I emphasise: those who wish to collect their cash at post offices will still be able to do so before and after the change in 2003. At present, until the cash in the post office crosses the counter, it is, in effect, the Secretary of State's cash. With ACT, the bank has the cash the minute that it is transferred to the person's account, so it is their cash.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Taxpayers' cash.

Mr. Rooker: No. It is legal terminology. The money that would be accessed via a post office is already the cash—

Mrs. Lait: Of taxpayers.

Mr. Rooker: No. It is already the cash of the beneficiary—it is already in the beneficiary's account. It is no longer in the Secretary of State's account, it is no longer in the Benefits Agency and it does not belong to the Post Office. The cash is already in the account of the payee: the pensioner, the child benefit recipient, the mother. That is the point.I am making. It will be the payee's cash. At present, the cash at the post office remains the Benefits Agency's cash until it is transferred.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister is trying to be helpful and I am sure that the House is grateful for that. In my understanding, the key piece of law that underpins all this—never mind the leaflets, the wording, the jargon and whether leaflets are being displayed—is the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987; I think that it is regulation 21, from memory. That makes payment by ACT a consensual act. The claimant has to opt in and the Secretary of State has to comply. The moment that the Government repeal that regulation without guaranteeing the sub-post office network an alternative stream of income, they will kill off the sub-post offices. The Minister can say that there will be arrangements and I understand that there will be negotiations. I hope that he will listen carefully to the representations that are being made, but he must be certain that the repeal of that legislation will potentially sound the death knell of the post office network.

Mr. Rooker: As the hon. Gentleman says, we must be very careful about how we implement the changes. We have to be sure that the system will work and that people will be able to get the money to which they have a right and which the House instructs the Government to pay. We are unable to make proposals for changing primary legislation and regulations because we do not have answers to all the questions. We need those answers before the changeover.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker: Let me make some progress before I give way again.
Let me remind hon. Members why the changes are necessary. The current system belongs to the days of ration books. The technology has hardly changed at all. The Department has to look at the best use of taxpayers' money. We spend £2 billion a week—or £100 billion a year—on issuing benefits. The running costs amount to some £3.5 billion a year. An ACT costs 1p in transaction costs compared with 49p for an order book foil and 79p per giro cashed. The overall costs to the Department are 1p per ACT, 54p for an order book transaction and £1.36 for a giro. Those costs include the paperwork, the production and the printing. The transaction costs vary slightly, but giros are more costly. We have to take that big jump into consideration. In addition, we estimate—we can only estimate—that we lose about £150 million a year in fraud such as counterfeiting and forgeries. I am not saying that there is not, and will not be, any fraud in ACT; it is fraud of a different nature. Obviously, we would have to adjust the anti-fraud programme to make sure that we do not lose what we have gained.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Are not the pensioners who want to receive their cash over the post office counter the same people who have contributed over the years to the creation of my right hon. Friend's Department? Might they not find his arguments about the cost of each transfer singularly unconvincing when they are faced with the difficulty of either having to run bank accounts that they are unable to maintain or being required to use an artificial machine to obtain their cash?

Mr. Rooker: I could argue that all machines are artificial. I was simply explaining the costs to the Department. We do not know what sub-postmasters receive; that is commercially confidential information between themselves and the Post Office. We pay an annual fee to Post Office Counters of some £400 million to £500 million. How it pays sub-postmasters is a matter for the Post Office.
What is happening now is unplanned and unmanaged. More people are choosing to use the banking system in an unplanned and unmanaged way.
When I was at that rally, in 1981, there were 22,000 sub-post offices. That figure stuck in my mind. We have fewer than that number now—but more than 18,000—and we have heard the figures on the losses. They are all independent private sector businesses. As I understand it, they are all also on a three-month contract. They could all disappear. The Government do not run them or own them. They are operated by individual business people, doing a first-class job. Some of them are more dependent than others on what they receive for benefits transactions.
If nothing happens—if no action is taken at central level by the Government and by the Post Office headquarters, and if the current changes continue—in a few years, we could lose the post office network. That change would have been unplanned and unmanaged, and every hon. Member would ask, "How on earth did it happen? Why didn't we do something about it?" The very purpose of our change is to provide planning and management. We want a transfer to ACT that will in turn protect the post office network. The Government are determined to help maintain a post office network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned work being done across government. The transfer is not being dealt with or led by the Department


of Social Security or by the Department of Trade and Industry. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to do work on the post office network. It has been doing that work since October 1999, and it will report fairly soon. That important work is being chaired by an independent Minister who has no role at either the DTI or the DSS. We should take that important fact on board.
The Government want to retain a post office network, which is crucial in rural areas. I take second place to no one in making the important point about the contribution of the rural post office in villages that have been deserted by the banks. The network is crucial. A post office may not always be in the right location to ensure its economic viability, but that is a consequence of the current lack of planning. We certainly want to be able to provide that planning.
We have to have a more modern system and to bring both the Post Office and the benefits system into the 21st century. They are certainly not there yet. The way in which we pay benefits, with orders books and old-fashioned giros, and the way in which the Post Office has been operating have not been consistent with a modern service delivery programme. There is no question about that. However, what we do not want to do is to lose post offices by accident—by lack of management and lack of foresight.
There will be no quick or easy fix, but we are attempting, first, to modernise the benefit service, which is important; secondly, to save public funds in administering that service, which is crucial—if we cannot, the Public Accounts Select Committee and other people will want to know why we are not using the best available economic processes; and, thirdly—but equally important—to maintain a viable post office network in rural areas and in urban areas. That is not to say that there will not be change. There will have to be change if the post office network is to survive. That is the reality of this debate.
I therefore hope that hon. Members will think twice before they consider pressing the new clause to a vote.

Mr. Webb: We have had quite an extraordinary response to the debate from the Minister. I should like very briefly to consider the logic, such as it was, of his argument.
The Minister said that there is a drift—or something faster than a drift—towards ACT. He said—I think that the record will show this—that, for the sake of the Post Office, the Government want to hasten ACT and make it compulsory. That statement will cause hollow laughter in sub-post offices across the land. They will simply not believe that Ministers are telling them that forced ACT is for their own good. I think that the record will show that the Minister said something very similar to that.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has taken a serious interest in the issue, raised a key point about the savings that the DSS will make from the change. It is good to see the Secretary of State for Social Security, in a rare lapse, in the Chamber while I am speaking. I would be happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wanted to offer a share of the £400 million savings to be made from ACT to the DTI to keep post offices open.

If he could guarantee that that money would not just go to the Department, we would feel more comfortable. However, that is not what is planned.
11 pm
If ACT is happening already out of choice, why is there a need to force the pace? If it is causing damage to post offices—which it obviously is—why speed it up? Why not let it go on as people choose, because choice is the key? If we let it go slowly, that gives the post offices more time, as the hon. Member for Stroud said. Stopping forcing people, but letting the drift happen, gives the post offices more time to adjust.
I take seriously the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who will chair an all-party group on sub-post offices. It is critical that we build up an all-party consensus on the issue. Those who suggest that this is scaremongering in the south-west ought to open their eyes to the closures of post offices. Our constituents do not ask why we are making all this fuss; they say that their post offices are being threatened, and they ask what we are going to do about it.

Mr. Peter Bradley: In typical Liberal fashion, the hon. Gentleman is conflating two separate issues; one is the future of post offices—which is not the subject of the debate this evening—and the other is how pensioners and other benefit claimants will receive their payments in future. Will he confirm my understanding that, in future, according to the new arrangements, pensioners will not have to open bank accounts; that those who do receive ACT through their bank accounts will not incur additional bank charges; and that pensioners who do not choose to receive their benefits by ACT will still be able to go to the post office and draw their pensions in cash over the counter? Those are the facts as the Minister has stated them. Does the hon. Gentleman accept them or not?

Mr. Webb: No, I do not accept that. A post office is needed for people to be able to get the cash from. The point is that the switch to ACT is hastening the closure of post offices. It is no good having the option of going to a post office if the nearest one has closed and one has to go miles to another. It is not a worthwhile choice if the post office network has been undermined. That is the consequence of the Government's policy.
There are people who want to choose ACT, and that is fine; there are people who do not want anything to do with bank accounts and will still go to the post office; and there are people in the middle—they are critical to the survival of post offices—who do not care very much but, if they are forced to go to ACT, will tend more and more to get their money from a bank, and that will kill the post offices. That is what we are trying to stop with the new clause.

Mr. Field: Although there is clearly a dispute on what the Minister did or did not say—even on this side of the House—was not the crucial thing that my right hon. Friend said that the key date is 2003? If so, is it not worth thinking about how we could most effectively use our votes?

Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman is chairing an all-party group on sub-post offices, and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will be a leading light in that campaign.

Mr. Martlew: That will be a first.

Mr. Webb: I say to the hon. Gentleman that, because we are not trying to make party politics out of this, and


because we want to bring all parties on board for the sake of post offices, we will not force him into the Lobby to commit himself to force people to go to ACT. We want to give time for all-party work to save the post offices. We hope that the other place will come up with something that will unite all parties and allow us to say that we together saved the post offices.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 57

Loss OF BENEFIT FOR BREACH OF COMMUNITY ORDER

Angela Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 61, line 6, leave out—
'Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991'
and insert—
'the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 27.

Angela Eagle: These amendments make two technical changes to clause 57. They introduce no policy changes but reflect the consolidation of existing legislation, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful to be able to address the House briefly on this matter. I support the amendments, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address some of the loopholes and contradictions that remain in clause 57 and its associated clauses.
I declare a personal interest in this matter. More years ago than I care to remember, I was responsible for setting up the pilot schemes for non-custodial treatment of offenders. In the context of the aims of that programme and of the operation of community services in the interim, I want to point out some of the gaps that remain in the amended clause that will progress for consideration in another place.
By way of background, let me say that one of the elements of the community service by offenders scheme that the House should recognise is that it was introduced to pursue entirely laudable aims. We wanted to find positive alternatives to incarceration, and to find ways of reducing the cost to the public purse—although at that time we did not anticipate a time when it would cost some £2 billion a year to keep people in prison. That amounts to about £30,000 per person, per year.
However, we also wanted to study notions of social reparation. The clauses that I am interested in address the question of obligation in the reparation process. The scheme that I set up also had the objective of trying to break the cycles of criminality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be somewhat mistaken about the scope of the amendments. His remarks seem to be going rather wide of the minor changes that the amendments entail. They would have been more suited to a general debate on

the clause, or to a debate on new clause 29, had that been selected. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the very specific amendment before the House.

Mr. Simpson: I checked with the Clerks a little earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make sure that it would be legitimate to ask the Minister to address the loopholes that remain and that ought to be considered when the Bill moves on to another place. I was advised that this was the most appropriate slot for drawing the Minister's attention to those loopholes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may know that I did not make up the guidance that I gave him out of my own head. The advice that I am giving him is as up-to-date as it can possible be. Therefore, I am not sure that this is the opportunity that he thought that it might be.

Mr. Simpson: I am not entirely clear how to proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you will give me guidance if I stray further than is legitimate.
My point has to do with the pursuit of new policies on constraint and obligation. Such policies are usually evidence based, and that is quite right. I am worried that we have yet to show that the existing system does not work, and that the amendments under discussion will close the loopholes that remain. My concern about this is that we will be left with a clause that does not make it desirable, workable or necessarily even legal. I hope that the Minister will address the specifics of three points that I hope can still be incorporated into that framework when it comes back to this House.
First, can the Minister demonstrate and spell out how the clauses, as amended, will be consistent with the European convention on human rights, particularly article 6 on fair trials, article 7 on no punishments without law and article 14 on non-discrimination? It appears that article 7 is breached on the basis—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some run, and I am sorry if he feels that he may have been misled by previous advice. The fact is that this is the only amendment to clause 57 that we have before us. The hon. Gentleman may have gained the impression that, because it was the only amendment, it would be the convenient amendment to which to relate his remarks. I am afraid that he is going far too wide, as he is talking about the clause as a whole and even beyond the clause. I really cannot permit this to go on. He has made one point and, if the Minister is disposed to comment on it, he will have to be content with that.

Angela Eagle: This is a very narrow technical amendment, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. I do not want to go out of order by responding in detail to the issues that he has raised. However, I refer him to Hansard. We had long and detailed debates about these matters in Committee, and it is in Hansard that he will find his answers.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 61, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) In relation to any time before the coming into force of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the reference to that Act in subsection (9) shall be taken to be a reference to Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Schedule 7

HOUSING BENEFIT AND COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT: REVISIONS AND APPEALS

Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 116, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).—[Angela Eagle.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 80, in page 116, line 24, at end insert—
'2A. The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that any child support maintenance received by a parent with care shall be disregarded in calculating her (or her partner's) entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.'.
Government amendments Nos. 17 to 25, 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 78, in clause 66, page 68, line 5, at end insert—
'(2) Section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996).'.
New schedule 1—'(Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996)—
In the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 after section 175(10), there shall be inserted—
(11) The Secretary of State shall by order amend the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 in accordance with the following provisions—

(a) In regulation 12A of the principal Regulations (requirement to refer to rent officers) leave out paragraph (1B);
(b) In regulation 11 of the principal Regulations (maximum rent) leave out paragraph (3A).".'.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment formally so that we can have a debate in some detail on these important matters.
The amendments cover two separate issues. Amendment No. 80 deals with an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and I raised in Committee, and I do not intend to go into great detail about it. However, I intend to spend some time debating amendment No. 78 and new schedule 1 which raise another matter that I believe needs urgent attention, and that I wish to deal with first.
The purpose of the amendment and the new schedule is to abolish the single room rent restriction on housing benefit payable to single people under 25 in private rented accommodation. The restriction was introduced in the House in 1996 by the previous Government. When they consulted about their proposed draft regulations, the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
We do not agree with the principle of making rates of benefit which distinguish those age 25 or over and those under 25. We consider that the consequences of the proposals could well be that some people dependent on benefits will face a choice between homelessness and living in accommodation of an unacceptably poor standard.
The Minister will be aware of the widespread support among organisations with experience of dealing with homelessness and housing for the repeal of that regulation and the legislation that underpins it. Organisations such as Shelter, Centrepoint, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Local Government Association, NACAB—the

National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—and many others recently wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging him to do that.
11.15 pm
There is growing evidence from the Government and other bodies that increased hardship is being caused by the single room rent restrictions. I am sure that Ministers are aware that there is a wealth of research on the matter. The Government's research, published in April 1999, examined several case studies. It considered a west-country city, a seaside town, a northern city, an inner and an outer-London borough and a market town, without giving their names.
The findings were disturbing. There were widespread shortfalls between housing benefit and rents. Indeed, 90 per cent. of the survey respondents reported such shortfalls—ranging from £10 to more than £20. The report concluded that one in five of those people owed more than £500 in back rent. Two thirds of them did not know of the existence of exceptional hardship payments.
In a written answer of 20 March, I was told that 62 per cent. of the Government's contribution of £20 million towards exceptional hardship payments in 1998–99—£12.51 million—had not been spent. People are not claiming that money; they do not know about it. That is hardly surprising because even the Government's research acknowledged that there was inadequate information and a lack of consistent practice between housing benefit offices in different local authorities.
However, it is not only Government research that gives cause for concern. Research by Shelter and Centrepoint found that there was a lack of accommodation matching the single room rent definition. Many landlords refused to let accommodation to young people—a fact picked up by the Government's research. Many people feel trapped in expensive accommodation from which they cannot afford to move. There is no affordable or cheap accommodation in their locality, which creates great difficulty for them.
When the Conservative Government introduced the single room rent restrictions in 1996, the Labour Opposition rightly opposed them and secured debates on the matter. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who was then an Opposition Social Security spokesman, moved the motion initiating the debate. At that time, the Opposition were very much in new Labour mode and were being exceedingly prudent as to their spending commitments before a general election.
The hon. Gentleman said:
Under these proposals, many young people will suffer the double disadvantage of a cut in their housing benefit, leaving potentially large rent payments to be made up out of an already reduced income support level … Again, we share that view. We share the concern that the response of landlords is likely to be to withdraw from providing accommodation for young people.
The hon. Gentleman made a point that is entirely germane to this debate when he stated:
We believe that the draconian regulations to restrict housing benefit to single people under 25 further constitutes a form of age discrimination within the means-tested benefits system, and is likely to force young people into unsuitable housing and lead to an increase in youth homelessness.—[Official Report, 5 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 619-23.]
The hon. Gentleman was right, as were the present Prime Minister, Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister and the many other Labour Members who voted against


the regulations. I hope that they will do the same thing tonight. It is time that the regulations were removed from the statute book and replaced by a rent and housing benefit support system that offered equality of treatment for everyone.
The matter was dealt with in some detail after the election. I pay tribute to the Government for taking the opportunity in June 1997, when given the chance to extend the scope, to revoke the regulations that had been introduced by the Conservatives. Although I fully acknowledge that, as we did at the time, the Government have been reviewing and considering the matter for three years. Three years is a long time, especially for people who have been clocking up rent arrears and living in unsatisfactory accommodation. That is why we ask the Government to move on the matter—if not through the amendment, through other means. We feel strongly that they should take action now.
Amendment No. 80 proposes that maintenance should be disregarded for the purposes of calculating housing and council tax benefits. That is an entirely separate matter, which takes us back to the debate on the Child Support Agency and the simplified formula. Parents with care receiving tax credits have all their maintenance payments disregarded. However, the disregard on housing and council tax benefits remains at £15. That means that up to 85 per cent. of any maintenance over £15 is lost in the extra rent and council tax that the parent with care must pay. A parent getting £30 a week, for example, keeps just £17.25 of that. The value of a more generous tax credit disregard is therefore eroded, and the Government fall short of their goal on child poverty.
We propose, with the support of the Child Poverty Action Group, that maintenance should be completely ignored for the purposes of housing and council tax benefits. That would better align practice with the goals that the Government have set.
Amendment No. 78 and new schedule 1 give hon. Members the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that they wish to see the end of such a pernicious set of regulations, which penalise the under-25s and cause many to suffer homelessness or to find themselves in inferior, inadequate accommodation. It is time, after three years, that the review ended and the action began.

Angela Eagle: Amendment No. 78 and new schedule I would remove the restriction on the amount of rent that can be used to calculate housing benefit for most single young people under the age of 25 living in the private rented sector. As has been said, the restriction was implemented by the previous Government in October 1996 and we have pledged to review it in the context of our wider housing benefit agenda. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for having the grace to thank us for not extending that rent restriction to those under the age of 60, as would have happened under the Conservatives.
We understand the concerns raised about the restriction and are looking very carefully at the effects of it as part of our welfare reform agenda. We shall issue our Green Paper on housing soon; all interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the issue will be addressed in the Green Paper.
Amendment No. 80 would mean that parents with care would have any maintenance disregarded when entitlement to housing and council tax benefits is calculated. Currently, £15 of any maintenance is ignored for the purposes of those benefits.
Concern about the impact of specific elements of the housing benefit system, which is expressed through both amendments, is understandable. Indeed, many such impacts must be considered—all of which we have been considering, in respect of and in parallel with housing policy. It is not wise merely to consider housing benefit issues in isolation from housing policy. We shall be publishing the Green Paper in due course following such consideration.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister be more specific about when the Green Paper will be published and in exactly which terms it will assess the questions of housing benefit, applicability and administration?

Angela Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's impatience and I hope that we shall be able to reward as quickly as possible any patience that he may show between now and the publication date. The Green Paper will be published soon. It will have a tremendous sweep and he should be reasonably satisfied with its scope when it appears.

Mr. Pickles: Surely the Minister can be a little more forthcoming. The Government have suggested that the Green Paper will not be produced until July, so why does she not say so?

Angela Eagle: Because that would not be accurate. The Green Paper will be published soon—I have to stick to that mantra. I ask the House to be patient, because there is a serious debate to be had on housing policy and housing benefit. That debate will include—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be pleased to learn—discussion of its administration. That is a vital part of the benefit, as we all realise from the constituents who visit us. We will have a much fuller debate on these issues once the Green Paper is published, and that will be soon.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 25 make minor changes to clause 65, which provides for funding of the new discretionary housing scheme and the housing benefit and council tax benefit revisions and appeals that appear in schedule 7. The amendments do not introduce any policy changes. They iron out the slightly deficient technical wording. They remove certain duplicate or otherwise unnecessary measures and make other minor or technical changes. I commend them to the House.
In the light of the imminent Green Paper, which will appear soon, I ask Liberal Democrat Members to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Burstow: We have heard "soon", and "in due course"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to seek the leave of the House.

Mr. Burstow: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I reply? I am grateful to you and to the House.
We have heard the Minister say soon, in due course and imminent. They are not the same; they mean many different things. If she had said that the Green Paper would be


published in a matter of days or weeks, we might have been persuaded. However, after three years of review, the offer of its being published soon is not adequate.
A Green Paper leads to a White Paper and a White Paper will lead to legislation after a general election. Four or five years of this Parliament without sorting the matter out is not acceptable. We wish to press amendment No. 78 to a vote. We believe that the House should have the opportunity to divide on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 116, line 14, leave out "or (b)".

No. 17, in page 121, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 18, in page 121, line 46, at end insert—
'( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to a different case—

(a) includes a reference to a case involving a different relevant authority; but
(b) does not include a reference to a case relating to a different benefit unless the different benefit is housing benefit or council tax benefit.'.

No. 19, in page 122, line 37, leave out from court" to end of line 39.

No. 20, in page 123, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) the reference to another case—

(a) includes a reference to a case involving a decision made, or falling to be made, by a different relevant authority; but
(b) does not include a reference to a case relating to another benefit unless the other benefit is housing benefit or council tax benefit.'.

No. 21, in page 123, line 27, leave out from "court" to end of line 29.

No. 22, in page 124, line 18, after "Commissioner;" insert—
'( ) the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to a different case—

(i) includes a reference to a case involving a different relevant authority; but
(ii) does not include a reference to a case relating to a different benefit unless the different benefit is housing benefit or council tax benefit;'.

No. 23, in page 126, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

No. 24, in page 126, line 46, leave out "that" and insert "the Administration".

No. 25, in page 127, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this Schedule any decision that is made or falls to be made—

(a) by a person authorised to carry out any function of a relevant authority relating to housing benefit or council tax benefit, or
(b) by a person providing services relating to housing benefit or council tax benefit directly or indirectly to a relevant authority,
shall be treated as a decision of the relevant authority on whose behalf the function is carried out or, as the case may be, to whom those services are provided.'.—[Angela Eagle.]

Clause 65

GRANTS TOWARDS COSTS OF DISCRETIONARY HOUSING PAYMENTS

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 67, line 16, after "discretionary" insert "housing".

No. 14, in page 67, line 33, leave out from "64" to end of line 34.—[Angela Eagle.]

Clause 66

RECOVERY OF HOUSING BENEFIT

Amendment proposed: No. 78, in page 68, line 5, at end insert—
'(2) Section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996).'.—[Mr. Burstow.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 260.

Division No. 132]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy



Baker, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Ballard, Jackie
Livsey, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Moore, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)



Öpik, Lembit


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Burnett, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Burstow, Paul
Sanders, Adrian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Stunell, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan
Webb, Steve


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Don Foster and


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Andrew George.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Burden, Richard


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burgon, Colin


Atkins, Charlotte
Butler, Mrs Christine


Austin, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Caton, Martin


Beard, Nigel
Cawsey, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Chaytor, David


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Betts, Clive
Clwyd, Ann


Blackman, Liz
Coaker, Vernon


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Cohen, Harry


Borrow, David
Coleman, Iain


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbett, Robin


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Corbyn, Jeremy






Corston, Jean
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Crausby, David
Lepper, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Leslie, Christopher


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Levitt, Tom


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Linton, Martin


Darvill, Keith
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Love, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
McCabe, Steve



McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dawson, Hilton
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dean, Mrs Janet
McDonnell, John


Dismore, Andrew
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Donohoe, Brian H
McIsaac, Shona


Doran, Frank
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Drew, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McNulty, Tony


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McWalter, Tony


Ennis, Jeff
McWilliam, John


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Reid, Rt Hon Frank
Mallaber, Judy


Flint, Caroline
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Miller, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gardiner, Barry
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Motley, Elliot


Gerrard, Neil
Mountford, Kali


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mullin, Chris


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Godsiff, Roger
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Goggins, Paul
Norris, Dan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Hara, Eddie


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Grogan, John
Pearson, Ian


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hanson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Plaskitt, James


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pollard, Kerry


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pond, Chris


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith
Pound, Stephen


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hope, Phil
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hopkins, Kelvin
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Hoyle, Lindsay
Quinn, Lawrie


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rapson, Syd


Humble, Mrs Joan
Raynsford, Nick


Hurst, Alan
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Hutton, John
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Illsley, Eric
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Rooney, Terry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jamieson, David
Rowlands, Ted


Jenkins, Brian
Roy, Frank


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Ruane, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Savidge, Malcolm


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sawford, Phil


Khabra, Piara S
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shaw, Jonathan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Short, Rt Hon Clare





Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Todd, Mark


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tynan, Bill


Snape, Peter
Vis, Dr Rudi


Soley, Clive
Walley, Ms Joan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wood, Mike


Stringer, Graham
Woodward, Shaun


Stuart Ms Gisela
Woolas, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Transfer of NAO Staff etc.) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.

AUDIT COMMISSION

That the Code of Audit Practice for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

That the draft Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 60) on 1999–2000 Special Grant for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (HC 330), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Housing (Hampshire)

Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is my privilege to present a petition in the name of my constituent, Mrs. Pamela Combes, which has been signed by some 750 of my constituents. The petitioners are concerned about proposals for new housing in Hampshire, equivalent to the building of a settlement the size of Southampton. They believe that that will devastate vast tracts of countryside, overwhelm the health, leisure and education services, cause massive congestion and overwhelm the life of rural communities.

The petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to totally reject the advisory panel's proposals to build 169,000 new houses in Hampshire.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Farmers (Midlands)

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is my privilege to present a petition to the House that was given me yesterday at a crisis rally of Derbyshire farmers and other farmers from the midlands, on the eve of the summit that the Prime Minister is to hold tomorrow.
The petition states that farmers in the midlands
wish to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the plight of farmers.
They call upon the House to support positive action to provide the viable production of true British food and ensure the maintenance of the British countryside.
The petition is signed by some 2,400 people, and is a sign of the growing concern about the Government's treatment of the countryside.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Telecommunications Mast, Brill

Mr. John Bercow: It is my privilege to present a petition tonight on behalf of Mr. Tim Andrew and 541 other residents of the parish of Brill in my constituency. The petition objects to the proposed erection by Orange Communications Services Ltd. of three antennae on the fire station drill tower in Temple street or in any other densely populated area of the village, because of the villagers' concern about the health risks that the erection of the antennae could pose.
The 542 petitioners represent the overwhelming majority of those canvassed on the subject. They state:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do all in his power to prevent the erection of the said antennae.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Pain Management

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Paul Burstow: My interest in the subject of pain management was first aroused by correspondence from constituents—people writing with concerns and complaints about the fact that they were having difficulty securing access to services locally, and in particular that they were waiting a considerable time.
From those initial inquiries and the correspondence that I had with the local NHS trust, I began to develop an appreciation of the pain management services available to my constituents—their value and their potential.
One person who, I know, values the help and support that she received from the centre of pain education at Sutton hospital, which is part of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust, is Denise. She even wrote a poem to the staff to show how much she appreciated their efforts. Denise was first diagnosed as having rheumatoid arthritis in 1977, when she was just 21 years old. She has lived with pain ever since. With the exception of the period following the initial onset of the disease, she has managed to hold down a full-time job and the running of a household. As she says in her own words:
Pain rules everything you do. It affects your relationships, as you become irritable and self-obsessed. It affects your social life, as outings have to be carefully planned to take account of your mobility, comfort, etc. It also prevents you joining in with many everyday events because of your special needs.
However, pain management has transformed Denise's life.
I have not sought this debate because I have a beef with the Government. Rather, I hope to encourage the Minister to consider pain management, particularly the management of back pain, as a candidate for development and investment as part of the Government's NHS modernisation programme. I believe that investment in pain management services would substantial dividends for individuals, their families, their employers and society as a whole.
In preparing for the debate, I have been grateful to the patients and staff at the centre of pain education at Sutton hospital for their help and advice. I am also grateful to BackCare, which is the only national charity concerned solely with back pain and reducing its impact. BackCare has done an excellent job of collating a wide range of facts and figures about the prevalence and causes of back pain, many of which exist within Department of Health statistics, but it has brought them together in a way that makes them more comprehensible. I appreciate the work that it has done.
From that work, it is clear that back pain is clearly the No. 1 cause of disability in Britain. More than 1 million people are disabled by it. But back pain can affect us all. The most recent figures suggest that two in five of the adult population—more than 16 million people—have had back pain lasting for more than a day. One in five of the UK adult population have had pain which lasted for more than four weeks. For 2.5 million people, back pain is constantly with them, day in, day out, without respite.
Back pain costs the UK some £6 billion a year. As much as two thirds of that is accounted for by 180 million lost working days every year. The cost to the NHS alone

is put at between £360 million and £640 million a year, with 900,000 hospital bed days per year being taken up by people with back pain.
The longer someone is off work with back pain, the greater are the odds that they will never return to work. In one in three cases of back pain the condition becomes chronic. For many long-term sufferers, their condition is not susceptible purely to physical interventions or medication. Often psychological or social factors are at play.
I am interested in how effective care pathways can be devised to integrate primary and secondary care to treat acute back pain with earlier diagnosis and appropriate medication and treatment. Were such pathways developed, the number of people suffering chronic back pain could be reduced significantly.
Since the UK Clinical Standards Advisory Group reported in 1994 and recommended a number of treatments for back pain, research has found that the availability of pain management services throughout Britain is patchy—perhaps another case of the previous Government's postcode legacy.
Research for the Medical Research Council and BackCare by the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine concluded that efforts to improve access to those services should be focused on health authorities and primary care groups.
This month's issue of Professional Nurse features an article entitled "Early management of patients with back pain" by Jan Austin of the James Paget Healthcare NHS trust. The author puts it this way:
The focus of early management should be to relieve symptoms of pain and prevent disability by prescribing simple analgesia, encouraging the person to take up appropriate activities and arranging physical therapy. At the same time, the GP should encourage the patient to think positively about his or her recovery and return to work, providing advice, reassurance and support using appropriate terminology to avoid the negative effect of poorly chosen language.
It is worth stressing that bed rest is not recommended. In fact, in many cases, it makes matters worse. But GPs are still recommending that course of action to as many as one in four of the people who come to see them about back pain. That is crazy. Such bad advice fuels a vicious circle of disability. Less activity leads to less mobility, which in turn leads to more pain and greater disability, and so on.
The fact that such poor advice is being given is worrying, because in 1996 the Royal College of General Practitioners issued guidelines on the management of acute lower back pain, which explicitly ruled out bed rest for back pain. Despite that, studies have found that the management of back pain by GPs falls well short of the guidelines.
I understand that work is in hand by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's orthopaedic protocols advisory group. The referral protocols that it is drawing up for back pain will be crucial to further progress. I hope that the Minister may be able to give some idea of how that work is proceeding and when it will be concluded and published.
Aside from the wider benefits of investment in pain management and the benefits for the individual, there are, as I said, savings for the NHS. Evidence from an evaluation of pain management for chronic lower back


pain conducted by the centre of pain education at Sutton hospital in 1995 found that every 100 people who completed its pain management course produced a saving of £32,000 on analgesics and epidurals. The evaluation also found that seven out of 10 people completing the course had no further appointments with or referrals to consultants.
The centre of pain education, or COPE, runs 10 out-patient pain management courses a year for people who live with back pain on a daily basis. The programme is provided through a multi-disciplinary team, which comprises a psychologist, a physiotherapist and a nurse, who, under the medical supervision of a pain consultant, use and teach a wide range of techniques for managing pain. Physiotherapy, acupuncture, aromatherapy, relaxation and counselling feature in the COPE armoury.
The COPE philosophy is holistic and can have a powerful effect. It delivers results. When I recently attended a COPE support group meeting, one person who had been on the course described it to me as coming to an accommodation with pain. COPE has six clear objectives: to reduce depression and anxiety; to increase independence; to review and reduce use of analgesic medication; to reduce absence from and promote return to work; to increase self-confidence in managing pain; and to reduce dependence on the NHS.
In 1997, 147 people were referred to the unit; in 1998, a further 136 referrals were made; and 120 more people were referred in the first six months of last year. Demand for the service and, consequently, waiting times, have increased. COPE evidence and the testimony of people who have attended the course show that it can change lives.
The courses stop the downward spiral of increasing use of ever stronger drugs, with all the side effects that that may involve. They give people the confidence and knowledge to ask about their medication. As one course attender described it to me:
Too familiar is the patient that started off with back pain and ended up by going into renal or liver failure or both.
Perhaps that is a stark view, but it is echoed by many members of the support group whom I met.
I should like COPE to develop an outreach programme, perhaps on a pilot basis, in Sutton. It would be based at GP clinics, thus providing easier access and education for patients as well as support for GPs. Such an approach could cut waiting times and allow earlier interventions to occur.
In the same way, collaboration between GPs, practice nurses and pain management services could lead to guidelines being drawn up on the use of pain relief drugs. A common protocol would go a long way to helping patients who suffer from chronic pain to secure access to effective drug regimes and, if they so desired, strategies for coping with pain with fewer or no drugs.
COPE currently provides a service only for those who suffer from lower back pain. However, a pilot scheme last year expanded that to include other sites of pain. It showed that other groups of patients responded well to its philosophy. I wonder whether the Minister will therefore encourage such co-operation between primary and secondary care, not only in my constituency, but in other places, especially on developing common protocols and outreach work.
As a participant in the COPE programme put it to me:
Having attended the 8 weekly visits to Sutton Hospital COPE Unit my overwhelming regret is that I was unaware of how much difference the skills of the team could have made to my life had I known of them three years ago.
That person suffered three years of constant pain. Like many other sufferers, she needed primary and secondary care to collaborate closely.
The article in Professional Nurse to which I referred summed up the point:
Working within guidelines ensures that patients are referred to the most appropriate point of secondary care, preventing a journey through services with long waiting times and resulting delays in assessment, diagnosis and rehabilitation. Delays fuel frustration and despair, with the patient often waiting months or even years for a referral to a pain clinic when other disciplines have discharged them. Illness behaviour and pain is by then well-established and more difficult to manage.
Managing pain can make a dramatic difference in the quality of a person's life. It can reduce their dependence on drugs and help them to get back to work; it also has knock-on health benefits.
I shall end where I began, with Denise. In a letter that she wrote to me, she painted a good picture of what pain management meant to her. One of the passages in her letter particularly struck me and underlined the way in which pain management makes a difference at a personal level. She said:
One other part of the course that sticks in my mind was the day when we were invited to bring a close relative or friend to one of the sessions. My partner, who has been with me for 17 years, came to the meeting. We realised that although we had coped with my problems for all those years, we had never actually talked about it! He said he learnt a lot about what I had to cope with and I learned how much more he wanted to help me. I realised that I had been struggling needlessly due to a sort of pride and embarrassment. We felt closer afterwards, and since.
There are beacons of hope and good practice. The Centre of Pain Education in my constituency is one of them. We now need clear guidance to GPs and primary care groups and trusts to build and signpost the care pathways and ensure that the necessary people-centred services are commissioned and provided in primary and secondary care.
The final sentence of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group 1994 report gave a stark warning. It stated:
If we do nothing to improve the situation, total social costs of back pain in Britain are likely to continue to increase by up to £0.5 billion per annum.
We need to do something about that; I hope that the Government will be able to do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate on pain management and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issues that he raised.
Pain is a major problem and a common consequence of ill health. Indeed, it is a major cause of ill health. It affects us all at some point in our lives and the experience is always unpleasant and often emotional. It is therefore important that good quality pain management is provided to patients to improve their health care and their quality of life. The debate is timely. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of the Clinical Standards Advisory


Group and he may be pleased to learn that tomorrow we shall publish its last four reports, including one on pain management. I reassure him that that is purely coincidental, although I congratulate him on brilliant timing.
When pain strikes, it does so in a very individualised way. Therefore, the management of pain must be customised to meet individual needs. The hon. Gentleman raised the case of his constituent, who is suffering from chronic rheumatoid arthritis. Denise's testimony is moving, but, unfortunately, not uncommon in the circumstances. We take the concerns of such people very seriously. The treatment and management of her pain will be very different from the management of pain experienced by a patient recovering from surgery.
If we experience pain, most of us can get quick relief simply by taking a pill. For some patients—those with hip or joint pain associated with osteoarthritis, for example—a pill offers only temporary respite. Permanent relief may come with a hip or other joint replacement operation, but sadly there is no permanent cure for some people. The group of people with chronic pain conditions such as back pain are sent to specialist pain management clinics, often after entering the national health service system in other specialties and being referred on.
In this country, pain management began some 50 years ago. In those early days, the pioneer anaesthetist responding to the needs of other doctors would carry out nerve blocks through local anaesthetics that blocked the nerves carrying the pain messages to the brain. However, in the 1960s clinicians and patients began to recognise that pain relief was effective in treating debilitating and distressing illness. As demand grew, the NHS began to establish formal clinics dedicated solely to managing pain in multi-professional teams.
The Pain Society, which was then known as the Intractable Pain Society of Great Britain, first met in 1962. Virtually every clinician working on pain relief attended—all 17 of them. Today, some 40 years on, almost every acute hospital has a pain service, although there are still considerable local variations in how those services are staffed and the range of treatments that they offer. However, next week's meeting of the Pain Society at the university of Warwick will be attended by more than 700 health care professionals.
I say this to show how far we have come. In many places, the development of chronic pain services was ad hoc, which has led to some extreme variations in services. Not every health authority can claim to provide the type and range of multidisciplinary services offered at the Centre of Pain Education in Sutton. I congratulate all the people working there on their great dedication and the way in which they have co-ordinated their services in the interests of the patients in that health authority. However, the increasing availability of services means that more patients can be treated. In England in 1998–99, there were more than 82,000 new referrals and more than 236,000 subsequent attendances in pain and anaesthetic clinics compared with some 71,000 new patients and slightly more than 211,000 subsequent attendances in 1996–97.
Let me now deal with the epidemiology of back pain. I do not argue for a moment with the figures given by the hon. Gentleman, which come from reputable sources and were used to support the clinical standards advisory

group's study of the epidemiology and cost of back pain in 1994. That is still an important document, which underpins our strategy for dealing with back pain.
An issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I might disagree is the number of back pain cases that become chronic. That may depend on how we define "chronic". I would argue that back pain is often short-lived and able to right itself without the need for medical treatment; only in a comparatively small number of cases does it become chronic. However, for those in whose cases it does become chronic it is very serious, and merits full attention.
Back pain is not only tragic for individuals, but the biggest single cause of sickness absence. It accounts for an estimated 12 million GP consultations. Some estimates put the cost to the NHS at as much as £480 million, and refer to some 880,000 out-patient attendances. Some identify a £5 billion cost to industry, and the loss of 11 million working days. That represents a considerable economic loss to the community.
One way in which we are tackling the occupational health problems is through our "back to work" initiative, which is intended to encourage employers to help us to reduce the incidence of back pain. We also want employers to be more helpful, and to behave more flexibly to patients suffering from back pain on their return to work. I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's observation that the longer someone is off work with back pain, the more difficult it becomes to go back to work. Last month, we announced funding for 19 successful projects to tackle the problem of back pain in the workplace, committing nearly £700,000.
The clinical standards advisory group's 1994 report on back pain made many practical recommendations about NHS services. It supported the multi-professional approach, and a rehabilitation programme including education and training in back function as well as the teaching of relaxation and coping strategies. The type of service that the hon. Gentleman encountered at the Centre of Pain Education in Sutton would fit its model very well. It is a highly acclaimed local service, with a multi-disciplinary pain management programme running 10 courses per year for patients with back pain for whom current medicine has been unable to find a cure.
Following the 1994 report, the Department of Health provided funds for a multi-disciplinary working group, led by the Royal College of General Practitioners, to implement some of the recommendations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned those.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that today a new set of guidelines was launched, sponsored by Blue Circle and based on work carried out under the auspices of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians. The aim is to improve understanding and management of back pain at work.
As I said earlier, tomorrow we will publish the report of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group on Pain Services. One of the most striking aspects of the report is the fact that it highlights the variations in care and health services across the country—an issue that Ministers are committed to tackling. While we can offer the very best in many areas, in others services we have a long way to go. One of our aims, as part of the modernisation and extra resources announced in last week's Budget statement, is to ensure equal access to good services.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about adherence to professional guidelines aimed at improving the treatment of acute back pain and preventing longer-term problems. That is why we shall underpin the reports of the clinical standards advisory group and the guidelines of the Royal College of General Practitioners with advice from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable for the work being undertaken by NICE. We have asked NICE to produce protocols offering advice to GPs on when to refer patients with acute lower-back pain to specialists. We recognise that variations in referral practices can make a marked difference to individual patients. Patients' access to the service and to secondary care may be delayed because the system becomes clogged up owing to inappropriate referrals, but there are those who, although they have been referred at the right time and to the right place, end up waiting longer. By proper management of the system, they could find relief and have better and faster treatment elsewhere.
The aims of the NICE protocols will be to define the condition itself more clearly, to set out precisely what specialists can offer and to set out criteria for prompt referral. Key reasons why a patient should not be referred must be equally clearly defined. Last but not least, the aim will be to set levels of urgency for each referral criterion, so that those in the most urgent need will receive treatment at the earliest opportunity. NICE is looking at a range of issues, but I have been assured that its work in that area will be completed later in the spring.
It should not be forgotten that, although chronic, intractable pain is primarily a physical, rather than a mental, health problem, the psychological consequences can include severe depression, anxiety and relationship difficulties. I could not have put it better than the hon. Gentleman's constituent, who described what it did not just to her life, but to her relationship with others and, in consequence, their life. People can have problems sustaining a job and a life. As was demonstrated, they can become very dependent on others.
Psychological approaches, particularly cognitive behavioural approaches, have been shown to be highly effective in helping chronic pain patients to regain some independence. Systematic reviews provide strong evidence of their efficacy. Psychologists are increasingly employed as team members to support staff in their delivery. I have seen in some centres of pain management the use of alternative therapies, whether aromatherapy, reflexology or acupuncture. A whole range supplements allows patients to manage their condition much more effectively.
I support the need for a collaborative approach to pain. I trust that the additional £8.64 million for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, part of a total allocation of £600 million that was announced in the House earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, will allow the authority to develop pain services in Sutton further. Our plans to modernise the NHS include making all parts of the health care system work better together, delivering better health and fast, fair and convenient services that depend on what is wrong with a patient, not where a patient lives.
We support the adherence to the CSAG guidelines on back pain, which still apply, despite the fact that they were first published in 1994. Those are backed up by further work and by wider use of the Royal College of General Practitioners guidelines on back pain. Those will soon be underpinned by the NICE referral protocols.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that provides him with some reassurance that we are taking the matter seriously. Although there are no straightforward answers or easy solutions, there are possibilities through a co-ordinated approach to allow people suffering from chronic pain to manage their condition and to live a much fuller and more useful life.

Mr. Burstow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the Minister has concluded her speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.